From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: Large disk drives Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:43:27 +0200 Message-ID: <545BA52F.6050205@gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:50066 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751581AbaKFQnb (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:43:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern , Boaz Harrosh Cc: James Bottomley , Christoph Hellwig , "Dale R. Worley" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On 11/06/2014 05:53 PM, Alan Stern wrote: >> But just the simple case of read-capacity failure should we then? > > That's a separate question. As far as I know, the case you are > describing has not come up. > BTW: what we should do is when the partition parser at the block layer see that the partition capacity as written in the partition-table is bigger then the capacity reported for the device we can put a fat message at dmesg with both sizes and user can decide. And/or add an extra field at block attributes for part_capacity. It is info that is known and parsed for today. > Alan Stern Thanks Boaz