Re: WD_QUIRK_FORCE_LBA48

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>> But, really, it's not clear to me that it's worth doing non-LBA48
>> transfers at all on drives capable of LBA48 [...]
> the problem is not drives, the problem is controllers.  Some IDE
> controllers don't support LBA48, but I don't have a list of those.
> The only way to know is to try ...

What behaviour do they produce at present when connected to a drive
>128G?  Wraparound at the 128G point?  Errors past there?

I would not suggest doing this unless (a) the drive claims to be
LBA48-capable and (b) the drive claims to be at least 0x10000000
sectors long.  If the answer to the above is "errors", then I'd just
retry non-LBA48 if the first LBA48 access errors, and, if that works,
then (a) log it, (b) mark it as no-LBA48, and (c) artificially cap that
drive's capacity at 128G.

Ideally, I'd suggest that controller drivers export some kind of
"LBA48-capable" flag, but getting there from here would be somewhat
nontrivial.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B