From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Host protected area on suspend/resume Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:15:53 +0900 Message-ID: <42D3DEA9.4070405@gmail.com> References: <20050712113044.GA8744@srcf.ucam.org> <42D3D87F.5040901@gmail.com> <20050712150739.GA9731@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.199]:41607 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261548AbVGLPQC (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:16:02 -0400 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l1so519552nzf for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:16:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20050712150739.GA9731@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:49:35PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > >> This has come up several times now. One thing I'm curious about is >>why we are disabling HPA on boot without consent from the user. AFAIK, >>HPA is mostly used to implement hidden recovery/suspend storage areas >>and disabling automatically on boot increases the likeliness of >>destroying them. What do we gain by disabling HPA on boot? Are there >>some dumb machines which unnecessarily sets HPA and reduces the capacity >>of drives excessively? Even in such cases, wouldn't it be better to do >>idedisk_check_hpa() only when kernel parameter explicitly says so? > > > I'm not sure why we're doing it, but reverting this behaviour is likely > to make some systems unbootable (install with kernel which disables HPA, > format entire drive, put filesystem on it). Yeah... it will immediately make disks unusable. sad, sad. -- tejun