From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: implement BROKEN_HPA horkage and apply it to HDS724040KLSA80 Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:23:09 -0300 Message-ID: <20070808102309.7fc792e0@localhost> References: <20070807054250.GQ13674@htj.dyndns.org> <20070807162529.1781b21c@the-village.bc.nu> <46B89177.2040209@gmail.com> <20070807175844.6818ffc9@the-village.bc.nu> <46B92894.8060502@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.140.247.100]:54765 "EHLO perninha.conectiva.com.br" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751694AbXHHNXQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:23:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46B92894.8060502@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Alan Cox , Jeff Garzik , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, kelk1@comcast.net Em Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:21:08 +0900 Tejun Heo escreveu: | Alan Cox wrote: | >>> I'd rather know what is going on here. A drive can legitimately | >>> support LBA48 and HPA and refuse READ_NATIVE_MAX_EXT. | >> READ_NATIVE_MAX_EXT is mandatory if HPA && LBA48, no | > | > Ok the report in that thread is different. The offending Maxtor simply | > aborts the read_native_max_ext | | I'll resend sans ata_id_has_hpa() change. Does that sound okay? I | don't really think we can do anything other than blacklisting it. Does that make your patch invalid or is it still ok? -- Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino