From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932142Ab0CICnD (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:43:03 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:63865 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932092Ab0CICnA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:43:00 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=jiKzMF3m21mpt7DR8Xf/9p7mwt+4Ei2PIYDh3ZLJYhBPBNb8THNYn9JYy3f3zdE41S owhW02LCAYdFJSBQtHkwXFCNUbq+MmheZnGFP0/Em3KrPxlwdbP/Kvh8fPkp4jiD1o9/ /o9hLnXEFTcgFvQtnO9CRNnBG6KjIpMh8Af5k= Message-ID: <4B95B5AC.8050101@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:42:52 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Karel Zak CC: "Martin K. Petersen" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Daniel Taylor , Jeff Garzik , Mark Lord , tytso@mit.edu, "H. Peter Anvin" , hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp, Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , irtiger@gmail.com, Matthew Wilcox , aschnell@suse.de, knikanth@suse.de, jdelvare@suse.de, Jim Meyering Subject: Re: ATA 4 KiB sector issues. References: <4B947393.2050002@kernel.org> <20100308195847.GC18077@nb.net.home> <4B95B39C.70402@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4B95B39C.70402@kernel.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, again. On 03/09/2010 11:34 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> - parted uses 1MiB alignment for disks with unknown topology, disks >> with topology information are aligned to optimal (or minimum) I/O >> size (parted >= 2.1) > > This will result in incorrect alignment for drives which lie about the > physical sector size to work around BIOS/drivers issues (C-1). It > would probably be best to align to at least 1MiB. I misread it. C-1 would be disks w/o alignment information which will be aligned to optimal_io_size which again would be 0 and thus 1MiB alignment. So, this should work, right? Thanks. -- tejun