From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Martin Steigerwald To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Michael Schmitz , Jens Axboe , jdow , linux-m68k , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH RFC] block: fix Amiga RDB partition support for disks >= 2 TB Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 09:13:09 +0200 Message-ID: <3681004.ZGfTzPZDUK@merkaba> In-Reply-To: References: <20180627012421.80B8F24E094@nmr-admin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-ID: Hi Geert. Geert Uytterhoeven - 28.06.18, 08:45:=20 > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 6:59 AM Michael Schmitz =20 wrote: > > Am 28.06.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > >>> And as stated in my other reply to the patch: > > >>> partition needs 64 bit disk device support in AmigaOS or AmigaOS > > >>> like > > >>> operating systems (NSD64, TD64 or SCSI direct) > > >>=20 > > >> I'd probably leave it at 'disk needs 64 bit disk device support > > >> on > > >> native OS', and only print that warning once. > > >=20 > > > This is fine with me. > >=20 > > OK, I'll go with that. >=20 > Do we really need the warning? > Once the parsing is fixed doing 64-bit math, it does not matter for > Linux anymore. Well, irony of this is: In my case the RDB has been created on a machine=20 with a native OS. So Linux warns me about something I already did so on=20 the native OS without any warning. In this case AmigaOS 4.0. =20 > Won't it make more sense to have the warning in the tool that created > the partition table in the first place? Well that would be up to the AmigaOS developers to decide. And well for amiga-fdisk or parted developers if they ever choose to=20 support this or already do. (I doubt that amiga-fdisk can handle this.) > > > I would not name the kernel option "eat_my_rdb", but use a less > > > dramatizing name. > > >=20 > > > Maybe just: "allow_64bit_rdb" or something like that. > >=20 > > I don't expect to get away with that :-) >=20 > I still fail to see what's the added value of the kernel option... > Either the partition is usable, or not. Well, I could try to contact some of the current AmigaOS developers=20 about that and ask them whether they would like to give me a statement=20 about this that I am allowed to post here. I would not know whether they answer and it may take a time. My offer=20 stands, but I would only do this, if you really like to have that=20 official feedback. Again, I am pretty sure that what I did is safe on AmigaOS 4 at least,=20 but I bet also on AmigaOS <4 with NSD64 or TD64 (except for the=20 filesystem sizes, but AmigaOS < 4 does not have JXFS anyway, and did not=20 have SFS2 as well, maybe that is available now, I don=B4t know). However Joanne is without doubt an authority on RDBs, but she has not=20 been involved with AmigaOS development for quite some time and, correct=20 me if this is wrong, Joanne, does not know as much about the recent=20 versions, as I or even more so as current AmigaOS developers know. Thanks, =2D-=20 Martin