Phillip Susi wrote: > On 12/15/2012 08:44 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> That code seems to be trying to exclude opt/min values that do not >> evenly divide PED_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT. That makes sense only when >> they're no larger than PED_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT. How about keeping the >> sanity-check, but applying it only when those values are no larger? >> I.e., > > Why do you think it makes sense when the kernel value is under 1 MB? > PED_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT is all well and good when the kernel doesn't > know of a better value, but if it thinks that the optimal alignment is > say, 768k, why should we disregard that?
I'd be suspicious because it's smaller than 1MiB and not a power of 2. Have you seen opt/min values 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.
