From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: 63 sectors
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:56:56 -0700
Message-ID: <48BF5C88.50604@zytor.com>
References: <48BE46DD.1070703@qumranet.com> <C6FABC699EA2354EB260110329F4B3550D4268@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> <48BF5708.2080303@zytor.com> <C6FABC699EA2354EB260110329F4B3550D427C@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>, KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Liu Yu-B13201 <Yu.Liu@freescale.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:45788 "EHLO
	terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751189AbYIDD5H (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:57:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <C6FABC699EA2354EB260110329F4B3550D427C@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
>>
>> Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
>>> How about adding 1 sector offset when access disk image.
>>> So that it looks like the 63rd sector, but it's indeed the 64th.
>> The problem with that is you make it suck on OSes which actually 
>> partition sanely.
> 
> You mean guest OSes?
> Guest OSes never know this offset, adding one sector offset is in qemu and transparent to them.

I mean guest OSes.

And no, they won't know the difference, but you are suggesting 
optimizing for guest OSes who are legacy/broken *AT THE EXPENSE* of 
guest OSes who do things sanely.

As partition and install utilities get a clue, there are going to be 
less of the former and more of the latter.

	-hpa