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

[H. J. Lu]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 07:38:00AM +1000, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 02:25:31PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > 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?
> 
> Because the kernel is read-only, but parted is read-write.
> The kernel doesn't need to use the information for anything (directly).
> 
> Parted needs it to modify partition tables, which could screw up
> MS-DOS, for example.
> 
> > Kernel and fdisk are happy with this. Only parted doesn't like it.
> 
> Fdisk can't resize partitions, so it doesn't need to know either.
> (New partitions will be broken, but it's unlikely that will be a problem)

It doesn't make much senses to me. It is the same HD. 2 geometries are
reported by 2 different BIOSes/drivers. Both should be usable for that
HD unless one of thme is bogus. Can you tell what is wrong with
9732/255/63 vs. 155114/16/63?


H.J.