-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/14/2014 06:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> This is just changing the goal posts. You asked why change, I
> provided several reasons, you come back with "hand waving" for
> only one of those reasons, and ignore the three comments in the
> bug repo
On Jul 14, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
>>> In any case, if they already deal with 0xfd correctly, why
>>> change?
>>
>> This is made clear in the mdadm page page, as well as the
>> previously cited bug comment by Doug Ledford who is an md raid
>> kernel developer.
>
> No, it isn'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/14/2014 4:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> They look at the type code first. If it's a type code they support,
> but the partition isn't something they expect, they actively
> suggest the user initialize the partition. It's similar for
> Windows.
Rig
On Jul 14, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> 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 act
-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 wh
On Jul 14, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> I've never tried the ext2 driver on Windows or used OSX. I thought
> they required an explicit mount command. Are you sure that these two
> OSes will automatically ( i.e. without being explicitly given a mount
> command ) try to mount an md
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/14/2014 12:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> How is this at all related? Windows already ignores 0x83.
>
> It does not ignore EBD0A0A2-B9E5-4433-87C0-68B6B72699C7 on GPT
> disks. Yet parted for *years* has wrongly used this type code by
> default fo
On Jul 14, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -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.redha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/14/2014 11:40 AM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> It ends up that 0xFD is only supposed to be used for mdraid 0.9
> metadata. For 1.0 and later they want 0xDA so that it isn't auto
> assembled and gets ignored by everything else.
Says who? 1.x won't be
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:03:58AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> 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
> > h
-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/
On Jul 13, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 07/10/2014 07:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> This is in master branch.
>>
>> libparted/labels/dos.c 98#define PARTITION_LINUX_RAID0xfd
>>
>>
>> This type code and metadata versi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/10/2014 07:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> This is in master branch.
>
> libparted/labels/dos.c 98 #define PARTITION_LINUX_RAID0xfd
>
>
> This type code and metadata version 0.9 are long deprecated.
> Parted lacks support for the "non-f
This is in master branch.
libparted/labels/dos.c
98 #define PARTITION_LINUX_RAID0xfd
This type code and metadata version 0.9 are long deprecated. Parted lacks
support for the "non-fs data" partition type code 0xda, which is what should be
used for mdadm metadata 1.x partitions.
man 8
14 matches
Mail list logo
