Phillip Susi wrote: > On 12/19/2012 3:41 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Ok, that makes sense. Then what do you think about lowering the bar >> from 1MiB to 128KiB? Maybe even 64KiB, I suppose. Better safe than >> sorry. Just look at how many people are still reporting problems >> with parted 1.8, so many years later. > > Wasn't the problem there just that it did not know about optimal > alignment, not that it was getting incorrect values from the kernel?
The current code filters minimal as well as optimal alignment values, so I presume it was for a good reason. > The facility was added to the kernel so that tools like parted could > be told the appropriate value to use rather than having to guess, so > I'm inclined to use it. Why have a minimum? If the kernel says it > knows this device should use a 48 KiB alignment, who are we to assume > that is wrong? I hope Brian has details. >> I'm pretty sure those tests do actually serve some purpose. Maybe >> Brian (Cc'd) knows for sure? (Brian, this is about the use of >> PED_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT, aka 1MiB in commit >> c749046a54d983f74f8156c0aea71b0995b9477d) > > Did you forget to Cc him? Yes. Thanks. This time, I have.
