From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271230AbTHCSXF (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:23:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271231AbTHCSXF (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:23:05 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:52905 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271230AbTHCSXD (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:23:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3F2D52FB.5040304@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:22:51 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: none User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021213 Debian/1.2.1-2.bunk X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Steffl CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SATA HD 137GB limitation? References: <3F1F33B0.4070701@bigfoot.com> <20030724171253.GD5695@gtf.org> <3F201AD0.1020704@bigfoot.com> In-Reply-To: <3F201AD0.1020704@bigfoot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I just realized, 2.4 kernels don't support scsi's READ_CAPACITY_16, nor 64-bit sector_t on a 32-bit processor. Can you test Alan Cox's 2.6.0-test-ac tree? I bet the 137GB limitation may disappear there. Jeff