Re: Why check legacy partition table for non-legacy HDs?

[H. J. Lu]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 07:21:48AM +1000, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 01:35:26PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I think I know what happened. That IDE drive was connected to a 3ware
> > ATA IDE RAID controller, which reported the geometry as 9732/255/63.
> > When I moved it to an IDE channel on MB, BIOS reports 155114/16/63.
> > That is why Linux kernel reports:
> > 
> > ...
> > hdc: 156355584 sectors (80054 MB) w/1819KiB Cache, CHS=155114/16/63, 
> > UDMA(33)
> > ...
> > Partition check:
> > ...
> >  hdc: [PTBL] [9732/255/63] hdc1
> 
> I agree, that explains everything.  So, do you think Parted is doing
> The Right Thing TM?  (I do)

I don't know. Since kernel has no problem, why should parted? If there
is no partition table to beging with or parted is going to create a new
partition table, parted can use 155114/16/63. I think parted should
follow kernel on Linux. BTW, I am planning to move that drive back to
3ware. Kernel and fdisk are happy with this. Only parted doesn't like
it.



H.J.