Phillip Susi wrote: > On 12/16/2012 02:09 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I'd be suspicious because it's smaller than 1MiB and not a power of >> 2. Have you seen opt/min values like that? > > Sure, take a 4 disk raid5 with 256k stripe factor.
Am I misunderstanding something? 256k is both smaller than 1MiB and *is* a power of 2. I was asking if you'd seen values *not* like that. >> I suspect that the existing code is the way it is for a good >> reason, hence my reluctance to gut it. What if some system reports >> totally bogus min. or opt. values < 1MiB? As it is now, parted will >> ignore them. But with your patch, it would use them and leave the >> user with poorly-aligned partitions. > > Then that's a bug in the kernel. Parted shouldn't ignore the kennel > on the off chance that some day somehow for someone it will have a bug. I guess it comes down to whether there are systems that return bogus values there, and whether there are systems that return legit values smaller < 1MiB, like I was asking about above. I'd prefer the more conservative patch I posted, since it allows alignment/opt. values larger than 1MiB (addressing the original problem) without risking as much.
