From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: ATA 4 KiB sector issues. Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:42:52 +0900 Message-ID: <4B95B5AC.8050101@gmail.com> References: <4B947393.2050002@kernel.org> <20100308195847.GC18077@nb.net.home> <4B95B39C.70402@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4B95B39C.70402@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Karel Zak Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Daniel Taylor , Jeff Garzik , Mark Lord , tytso@mit.edu, "H. Peter Anvin" , hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp, Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , irtiger@gmail.com, Matthew Wilcox , aschnell@suse.de, knikanth@suse.de, jdelvare@suse.de, Jim Meyering List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello, again. On 03/09/2010 11:34 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> - parted uses 1MiB alignment for disks with unknown topology, disks >> with topology information are aligned to optimal (or minimum) I/O >> size (parted >= 2.1) > > This will result in incorrect alignment for drives which lie about the > physical sector size to work around BIOS/drivers issues (C-1). It > would probably be best to align to at least 1MiB. I misread it. C-1 would be disks w/o alignment information which will be aligned to optimal_io_size which again would be 0 and thus 1MiB alignment. So, this should work, right? Thanks. -- tejun