Re: Working around bogus HPAs in libata

[Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 11:33 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 04/06/2010 11:28 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If a system vendor puts its own name or model numbers on the disks it
> > ships then I think the BIOS or other platform firmware can reasonably
> > assume that it 'owns' and can write to the HPA on a disk with the
> > vendor's identification.  (I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that
> > some vendors take shortcuts though.)
> 
> I would be very surprised if no vendor took shortcuts.  :-)
> 
> >> Ah... I see, but let's fix that up too.  It could be worse to have
> >> half working workaround than not working around at all.  I'll update
> >> the patch once the currently pending HPA updates are in.
> > 
> > Oh, what are those?
> 
> The patch I posted is rolled up version which contained currently
> pending HPA unlock on shrink patch.
> 
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/45662

It sounds like that should go to stable as well.

> > I want to apply some version of this fix in Debian soon so we can
> > complete the transition to libata.  I would very much appreciate it if
> > you could answer whether or not the multiple 'capacity change' messages
> > may indicate a problem.
> 
> Multiple messages are probably sd doing revalidation of the device.  I
> don't think it will cause any problem but I'll look into it later
> today and let you know.

What did you find?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]