[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: [PATCHSET] block,scsi,libata: implement alt_size
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Dan Williams <dan j williams gmail com>
- Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff garzik org>, linux-scsi vger kernel org, Mauelshagen redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-ide vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, jens axboe oracle com
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCHSET] block,scsi,libata: implement alt_size
- Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:02:47 +0900
Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff garzik org> wrote:
>> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>> <shrug> I suppose...
>>>>
>>>> It just seems like a nasty hack, but unfortunately I don't see
>>>> anyone stepping up to do it properly -- with a DM device
>>>> automatically layered on top that splits the device into separate
>>>> regions: one block device for the 'regular' area, and one for the
>>>> HPA.
>>> Isn't that more hacky? I don't know. All that dm needs to know is
>>> the location of the metadata which is located w.r.t. the end of the
>>> device which might be at a different location if BIOS tried to pull
>>> silly stunts. So, exporting the size BIOS might have used seems like
>>> a straight forward solution to me.
>> "<shrug> I suppose" is basically a reluctant ack, in the absence of other
>> solutions :)
>>
>
> Couldn't the "fix" also just be a note to users to disable ignore_hpa
> if they notice that there raid arrays are not assembling correctly?
I don't know. If it doesn't work automatically, the solution really
isn't worth much. People generally don't (shouldn't need to) have any
idea what HPA is. It basically boils down to "Linux doesn't support
RAID". :-)
Maybe we should just put this issue to the rest and strongly advise
people against BIOS raids.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]