> No, it never makes sense. If you are going to use the BIOS defined
> geometry at all, then you should never vary from what the BIOS is
> using. If someone actually thinks that it does help then they need to
> learn to set their system up properly.
>
> > I think the driver should never ignore the explicitly given wish
> > of the user. This user will only start supplying boot time parameters
> > when the default does not work. So, it never makes sense to ignore
> > boot parameters.
>
> Not every user that uses boot parameters has a clear understanding of
> what those parameters do no matter how much documentation I write. I'll
> take the word of the SEEPROM config over the boot option when available
> thank you.
>
> But I do not thank you.
> Unfortunately I have a certain visibility as fdisk maintainer,
> author of the Large-Disk HOWTO, answerer of lots of geometry questions
> on the net. It happens regularly that I have to send people a kernel
> patch because the kernel does the wrong thing in their situation.
> You are creating more of such cases. I am unhappy about that.
> Maybe you do not realize how time-consuming it is to find out
> what the user's problem is and then to construct a kernel patch
> that probably will help him. It is a thousand times faster to say
> "try the `extended' boot parameter".
Ok, seing this, I have a question. I have a pair of Cheetah 9Gb wide
drives, both running of of a Symbios scsi/ethernet card (875 IIRC). One
drive shows up with 1106 cylinders and the other shows the 8K+ number of
cylinders. At first I thought it must have been a side effect of a
failed NT install attempts. After low-level formatting, nothing changed.
What would cause this, and is it something I should be concerned about?
Bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/