From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752164Ab0CQCFx (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:05:53 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:46957 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751973Ab0CQCFw (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:05:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA038CB.8050400@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:04:59 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100228 SUSE/3.0.3-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ric Wheeler CC: James Bottomley , Denys Vlasenko , Arnd Bergmann , "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 Subject: Re: ATA 4 KiB sector issues. References: <4B947393.2050002@kernel.org> <201003100046.24695.arnd@arndb.de> <1158166a1003100114j6ea329fbh84bfad65dcac90bf@mail.gmail.com> <4B9EED55.10201@kernel.org> <1268720060.21384.10.camel@mulgrave.site> <4B9F2388.2030803@kernel.org> <1268745897.21384.14.camel@mulgrave.site> <4B9F8E1A.2020608@kernel.org> <1268749297.21384.15.camel@mulgrave.site> <4B9F9AAF.6080709@kernel.org> <1268751748.21384.18.camel@mulgrave.site> <4B9FA1C6.7090305@kernel.org> <1268752993.21384.23.camel@mulgrave.site> <4B9FA59E.1000402@kernel.org> <4B9FED32.6080400@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B9FED32.6080400@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Ric. On 03/17/2010 05:42 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > Dropping any mention of CHS seems to be the only sensible thing. Why > waste any time to continue some myth about drives that no modern > hardware supports (and then have the joy of explaining that to users)? > > Talking about it only confuses people and in the worst case, could cause > them to misalign their partitions by clinging to these pretend borders :-) I don't think not mentioning it would clear up the myth. It would probably be a good idea to beef up the document to clear misconceptions around disk geometry. I'll give a shot at it. Thanks. -- tejun