From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: libata: implement on-demand HPA unlocking Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:35:30 -0500 Message-ID: <4D5332D2.5090701@cfl.rr.com> References: <4D51A648.20707@cfl.rr.com> <20110209085935.GE6558@htj.dyndns.org> <4D52B0B3.40900@cfl.rr.com> <20110209153714.558133d7@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4D52ECB6.4010408@cfl.rr.com> <20110209214118.GA7196@atj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121]:63404 "EHLO cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750822Ab1BJAfb (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:35:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110209214118.GA7196@atj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Alan Cox , Ben Hutchings , Jeff Garzik , IDE/ATA development list On 02/09/2011 04:41 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > So, no, the situation has always been quite muddy with HPA and if you > ask me it is an inherently stupid feature bound to cause problems. What problems? Other than those caused by unlocking it in the first place, and then upgrading? > The setting is not even bound to the hard drive. You move a hard > drive to a different machine, the size changes, hooray! Oh right, Unless the other machine decides to change it, then it is bound to the drive. It is possible that both machines will change it, but since most don't bother using the HPA, it tends to be preserved when moving from a machine that uses it to one that does not. > I think ide had it right all along. We should just have unlocked > things by default when HPA unlock feature was added. A lot of BIOSen Why? > To sum up, no, not unlocking HPA by default was not a conscious > decision and neither was some distros defaulting to unlocking it. > Those decisions are all made by inertia, so please stop bringing them > up. They don't mean much. Then why did you write a patch that seems to be a reasonable compromise between the two and will allow distros to stop diverging from upstream in this way, and are now arguing against that patch?