From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH #upstream-fixes 1/4] libata: fix device iteration bugs
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:17:38 -0500
Message-ID: <491E4D62.7060205@rtr.ca>
References: <6ca8fe89c868f95831328d31c27f9cdb@localhost> <1DE9BF42-39BB-4220-BDF0-62F14C854E77@it-loops.com> <4917DA12.8070307@kernel.org> <07a2f909b249db90ad6bfdddfdd17765@localhost> <49180B2E.6020604@kernel.org> <49184E1A.3010508@rtr.ca> <4918F1BC.2070602@kernel.org> <4919038B.8020407@rtr.ca> <49194E1C.9030800@ru.mvista.com> <3b5e4132a8abe8d67b4f1701a384a2d4@localhost> <491996D3.80805@rtr.ca> <4D5A0E9F-4931-449F-99F6-38C09C55983A@it-loops.com> <491A2F65.8030605@rtr.ca> <491A40AB.4070002@kernel.org> <90e002e7b2d47cad80ff952a2a81f0e7@localhost> <491A90BE.9030005@kernel.org> <1741f98465176fff86a1dda48fc965ac@localhost> <491AA18A.9090001@kernel.org> <fdc08450bd57b75c90440beab3d7534a@localhost> <491AA682.2000100@kernel.org> <f6c0b70008a38679e11dff42a0970c9c@localhost> <491CE4A6.90802@rtr.ca>
 <5595676605432696d80b8394cfd8ae83@localhost> <491DB3AB.7020306@rtr.ca> <491DB44A.5070701@rtr.ca> <C25CB239-E794-4183-9F9D-9AEFEC0FD77F@it-loops.com> <491E4C6B.6030309@rtr.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from rtr.ca ([76.10.145.34]:54334 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751888AbYKOEQt (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:16:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <491E4C6B.6030309@rtr.ca>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Guntsche Michael <mike@it-loops.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>

Mark Lord wrote:
..
>>           *    Host Protected Area feature set
> ..
> 
> That last line bothers me -- the '*' indicates that an HPA is in effect,
> but the -N output indicates otherwise.. mmm...
> Let's see:  66055248 = 0x3efec50.
> If we mask off all but the lower 24 bits,
> we get 0xefec50 = 15723600,
> which matches what the buggy device driver
> returned when it dropped the top 24 bits.
> 
> So probably no bug in hdparm.
> Which is odd, because google tells me that
> the IC35L040AVER07-0 really is a 40GB drive.
> 
> Mmm..
..

Oh..
Since you now have hdparm-9.3, what do you get from "hdparm --dco-identify" ??