From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 23 16:56:30 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580EC1065673; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:56:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from mail.xcllnt.net (mail.xcllnt.net [70.36.220.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176D78FC13; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sa-nc-common-178.static.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.xcllnt.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4NGZvgM016145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 23 May 2011 09:36:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Marcel Moolenaar In-Reply-To: <4DDA2F0B.2040203@yandex.ru> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:35:52 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <4DDA2F0B.2040203@yandex.ru> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Marcel Moolenaar , Warner Losh , Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove requirement of alignment to track from MBR scheme X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:56:30 -0000 On May 23, 2011, at 2:55 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > Hi, > > Since after r221788 many people report about lost of access to their > MBR partitions, i prepared new patch: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~ae/mbr_geometry.diff > > It removes from GEOM_PART_MBR constraints to alignment to track. > Now it is possible to create MBR partitions with exactly specified > start offset and size, and they will not be recalculated by kernel. Ok, slow down. While I don't mind that we remove the track alignment when we create MBR partitions, I don't think we should slap another "big" change on top of the previous "big" change. Can I ask we first properly revert the changes we made so far just so that the revision history clearly states that we cannot enforce track boundaries. Let's also make sure we have the proper fix for the "negative partition size" problem that started this whole thing. And *then* we wait a week, just to be sure we let the dust settle. I think we've had enough rushed and ill thought-out changes going in already and I can see that not aligning MBR partitions on a track boundary is potentially perceived as a PITA violation. Thanks, -- Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net