GNU bug report logs - #17994
Linux RAID MBR type code

Previous Next

Package: parted;

Reported by: Chris Murphy <lists <at> colorremedies.com>

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:43:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Phillip Susi <psusi <at> ubuntu.com>
To: Chris Murphy <lists <at> colorremedies.com>
Cc: 17994 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17994: Linux RAID MBR type code
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:03:58 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/13/2014 9:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Why does it matter?  Linux doesn't pay attention to the
>> partition type code anyhow.  I've always just used 0x83.
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118065#c5 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118065#c8
> 
> 
> I find this logic troubling. It's rather similar to the logic that 
> lead to parted using the pre-existing Microsoft basic data GUID
> when making Linux partitions on GPT disks; out of a pool of just
> under infinite alternative GUIDs. "Oh it doesn't really matter" on
> Linux, but meanwhile on dual boot systems, Windows recognizes its 
> partitiontype GUID, but not the contents of the partition, and 
> actively invites the user to reformat it.

How is this at all related?  Windows already ignores 0x83.

> For example, 0x83 partition type, and mdadm metadata 1.0 on md
> raid1 suggests that the partition can be mounted stand alone rather
> than first assembling the raid. If something actually were to do
> this, the array would become inconsistent and unrepairable without
> rather knowledgable manual intervention. A partition with md
> metadata is in fact not a Linux filesystem, so really we shouldn't
> lie about what it is by using the wrong partition type code.

Suggests?  Lieing?  To whom?  Nobody pays attention to the type codes.
 Also if you really want a different type code for raid, there already
is one: 0xFD.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTw+NOAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrw6vsH/Rxuwlqtw7Ef7KmBNMqWeZvz
6jGf4hxDUy176O6GRFMDlroJY4Gk5apSZdzyTGcIhprMYVe12DVZA5/rJOz1GmP7
/ArqaJoDtyRXP0/yuDqXxlwHoA0u8HaUGtXv2D1SEqw+dbi3Rb1f+D8E/tZ/TcXG
Y+Tcr9cyl0W2gvS9UrYrIgErscaUhJeGV7r1Njiv6GDmyExDm9zhtlafC+g9Z2ZZ
XK7MV3y2mReSiZOnZejZ+3ZT0Doiv2tPDlGkG73L+rZ4fJdN1/FS4L22UDEIhZtS
d36qKBPDWAuij9LR5Yz+1oK0c9f34cWn2mo8rDDZyU7USdiEA2eorevHwCaFHaI=
=gn+C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




This bug report was last modified 10 years and 342 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.