If CHS is truly meaningless (less drives smaller than 8.4GB) why can we
not specify forced LBA geometry reporting? Also any drive supporting
48-bit feature sets are forbidden to use CHS.
Just a comment, not bait for a lesson or lecture :-)
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 11:47:16PM +1000, Allan Duncan wrote:
>
> > Question is - what is determining that initial value that becomes the "logical"
> > CHS, and does it matter?
>
> No, it does not matter at all.
> CHS are meaningless numbers not used anywhere anymore in Linux.
>
> If you want to influence what geometry *fdisk will use, give it
> the appropriate options or commands. No need to go via the kernel.
> But only in rare cases is it necessary to worry about geometry.
>
> Andries
>
> > Aside - RedHat has dropped cfdisk from util-linux in their distro versions 7.2 ff.
> > Given the bad words said about fdisk, what did cfdisk do to be ostracised?
>
> RedHat thought cfdisk is buggy.
> They were mistaken.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/