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

Previous Next

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 14:55:16 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/14/2014 2:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I haven't test it, but as Apple long ago deprecated fstab in favor
> of automounting anything it recognizes, I'd expect it would
> automount this configuration. But what does happen isn't as
> important as what legitimately can happen now or in the future
> which is automounting because this is invited due to the use of the
> wrong type code.

What can legitimately happen now or in the future is anything and
everything since partition type codes are not standardized.  The
question is, does apple actually look at the type code, or do they
work like Linux does and probe the actual contents?  Since the windows
ext2 driver was written by the Linux community, I would at least
expect it to work like Linux does, and not give a hoot about the
partition type code.  In any case, if they already deal with 0xfd
correctly, why change?

> That is a completely disingenuous reading. If you take the entire 
> page as a whole, it's saying you can choose 0xfd with 0.9
> metadata, or you can choose 0xda with 1.x metadata. It is not
> suggesting use of 0xfd with 1.x metadata.

It is pretty clear to me that it is simply a suggestion and they make
it clear that it really doesn't matter.  Since it doesn't really
matter, and there appears to be no reason to add a new code instead of
sticking with 0xfd, I'm disinclined to needlessly complicate the
partitioning process any further for no gain.

> And this has sufficiently explained the conflict with using either 
> 0xfd or 0x83, even on Linux.

What conflict?  The only conflict I am aware of is user confusion over
which one to use, which will only be made worse by adding yet another
code.

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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTxCeUAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrwa0gIAKb8dZAM0it66Qt93bvRFxqW
hwCmXODFdysma1KfRPf2R2H9BCznllXhJa9MaVuTqaAH/9jzg46c8ZJeVktc5ULB
pn71qsVTbZq7FV6H1KLrt/01vAV/4Um9P23g6UH0tbZ/TS+leKe6SC1air8kb1pK
NakVg06iOWkgbJU7E0eZyjoz5dWmJ6gMBFrtE/BsagKFvkQIn/z39U9EY5DytNvf
woU18fuGeM6tWV7vnk/ug1bIBs1/zlhH/1e9CVTdcxXDvI/kOLcsRkHlMl+bNbhP
6ka6X6RusQaVNz5mX3exLl+aqVa2Y99WsiIKV4opIshxEdY1QmNuNbhLQcLHd9c=
=JB8g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Previous Next

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