All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
	"Hawrylewicz Czarnowski,
	Przemyslaw" <przemyslaw.hawrylewicz.czarnowski@intel.com>
Subject: Re: HPA unlock during partition scan of RAID components
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:00:07 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EB2E4B7.7000103@cfl.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111103153835.GF4417@google.com>

On 11/3/2011 11:54 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> This has come up a couple times and I think the proper solution is to
> always unlock HPA and expose both sizes - locked and unlocked and let
> dm, md or whatever do whatever is approriate.  Block or driver layer
> doesn't have any way to determine which one is the right bet - it
> simply doesn't have enough information.  I tried to bounce this idea
> off people who whould actually be using this (dm/md) but haven't heard
> back yet.

Simply making the smaller size available does not solve the problem of 
making the part of the drive that is supposed to remain hidden 
accessible to user space, and it remains unlocked across a reboot, which 
usually makes the bios fail to recognize such drives.

The only reason I am aware of for unlocking the hpa is to avoid problems 
caused by upgrading an old system that was installed using the unlock 
behavior and thus, incorrectly extended its partition into the protected 
area.  It seems the appropriate fix for that it for distribution upgrade 
scripts to test for this and configure the boot loader to pass the 
unlock flag ( or maybe fix the problem by shrinking the partition ), 
rather than have the kernel continue to try unlocking things by default.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-03 19:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <74AAB12B538EC94087A0D16AFDFC24F4045674@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
2011-11-03 15:54 ` HPA unlock during partition scan of RAID components Tejun Heo
2011-11-03 19:00   ` Phillip Susi [this message]
2011-11-04 14:48     ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-04 15:42       ` Phillip Susi
2011-11-04 15:52         ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-04 16:26           ` Phillip Susi
2011-11-04 16:32             ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-04 21:08               ` Phillip Susi
2011-11-04 21:50                 ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-05  1:29                   ` Phillip Susi
2011-11-05  1:43                     ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-05  2:26                       ` Phillip Susi
2011-11-05  2:52                         ` Tejun Heo
2011-11-05  3:50                           ` Phillip Susi
2011-11-03 20:46   ` NeilBrown
2011-11-03 21:08     ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-15  0:50       ` Charles Nordlund

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4EB2E4B7.7000103@cfl.rr.com \
    --to=psusi@cfl.rr.com \
    --cc=bzolnier@gmail.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=przemyslaw.hawrylewicz.czarnowski@intel.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.