[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] libata: implement ->set_capacity()
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 17:56 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jens, James, Jeff,
> This patchset implements ->set_capacity() in libata so that HPA can be
> unlocked on demand.
> 0001-block-restart-partition-scan-after-resizing-a-device.patch
> 0002-SCSI-implement-sd_set_capacity.patch
> 0003-libata-use-the-enlarged-capacity-after-late-HPA-unlo.patch
> 0004-libata-implement-on-demand-HPA-unlocking.patch
> 0001 makes partition scan code to restart after ->set_capacity().
> This makes sure that partitions which start beyond the HPA limit are
> discovered.
> 0002 implements ->set_capacity() in sd.
> 0003 makes libata accept device capacity larger than the initial one.
> 0004 implements ->set_capacity() in libata which asks libata EH to
> unlock HPA, waits and returns the new capacity.
> Ben Hutchings suggeseted implementing ->set_capacity() in libata and
> also reported the bug in the current partition scan code where it
> fails to discover partitions which start beyond the HPA limit.
> Unlocking HPA on-demand seems to be the safest default way to deal
> with HPA. Leaving HPA alone by default could fail to detect or
> truncate existing partitions while unlocking by default make it more
> prone to obscure data corruptions when combined with BIOSes beliving
> that they exclusively own the area beyond HPA limit.
> 0001 should be routed through the block tree. 0002 should go through
> SCSI but given the dependency and that libata is the only user, it
> would probably much easier to route it through libata-dev#upstream
> together with 0003 and 0004.

I'm not sure this is such a good interface ... it sounds very error
prone for what is effectively a binary lock/unlock. Instead of just
saying unlock the HPA and show me the new capacity (with a rescan), you
have to echo the right number of sectors to the set_capacity variable.
Isn't a hpa_unlock libata specific attribute better (you could even call
BLKRRPART from the user context of the write)?


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-13 18:09    [W:0.088 / U:1.308 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site