Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> Andrew Clausen wrote:
> >
> > Bryan Henderson wrote:
> > > Incidentally, I just realized that the common name "partition ID"
> > > for this value is quite a misnomer. As far as I know, it has
> > > never identified the partition, but rather described its contents.
> >
>
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> It would already be possible to auto-enable any devices with the swap
> signature by doing the same sort of search mount(8) is doing for LABEL
> and UUID.
That would be a very poor idea.
Since different filesystems have signatures in different places,
a partition may well
Matt Robinson writes:
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > What would be wrong with changing the kernel to skip the first page of
> > swap, and allowing us to put a signature there? This would be really
> > useful for systems that mount ext2 filesystems by LABEL or UUID. With
> > the exception of swap, y
Andrew Clausen wrote:
>
> Bryan Henderson wrote:
> > Incidentally, I just realized that the common name "partition ID"
> > for this value is quite a misnomer. As far as I know, it has
> > never identified the partition, but rather described its contents.
>
> Yes, "partition type ID" is better.
Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> H. Peter Anvin writes:
> > We have:
> >
> >0x82 - Linux swap
> >0x83 - Linux filesystem
> >0x85 - Linux extended partition (yes, this one does matter!)
> >
> > There seems to be some value in having a different value for swap. It
> > lets an automatic progra
Bryan Henderson wrote:
> Allow me to reword to what you probably meant: Have a partition
> ID that means "generic partition - check signatures within for
> details." (And then get people who develop file systems for use
> with Linux, at least, to have a policy of always using that).
OK.
> Inci
Bryan Henderson wrote:
> If you're going to complain about the way partition IDs are assigned,
> a valid complaint would be that "83" is defined as "Linux," instead
> of as something that actually indicates the kind of filesystem on the
> partition.
OK. s/Linux/Well behaved operationing systems
Andreas Dilger writes:
: What would be wrong with changing the kernel to skip the first page
: of swap, and allowing us to put a signature there?
Swap space already has a signature. Read mkswap(8).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> H. Peter Anvin writes:
> > We have:
> >
> >0x82 - Linux swap
> >0x83 - Linux filesystem
> >0x85 - Linux extended partition (yes, this one does matter!)
> >
> > There seems to be some value in having a different value for swap. It
> > lets an automatic progra
H. Peter Anvin writes:
> We have:
>
>0x82 - Linux swap
>0x83 - Linux filesystem
>0x85 - Linux extended partition (yes, this one does matter!)
>
> There seems to be some value in having a different value for swap. It
> lets an automatic program find a partition that does not contain
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Andrew Clausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> > Apart from
> > that, the kernel couldn't care. You could set all your Ext2 partitions
> > as ID 82, your swap as ID 83 and Linux would carry on as if nothing had
> > changed.
>
The bios on my laptop will only enable the suspend to disk function,
if there is a partion on the disk that is 'IBM Thinkpad hibernation'
(and it is a primary partition).
So, linux may not care but lots of other things that users rely on do
care.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
Russell King wrote:
>
> Andrew Clausen writes:
> > Why is this necessary? Can't the RAID drivers probe the device for
> > signatures, the same way file systems do?
>
> One possible problem I can see here is to do with removal of RAID. Think
> of a RAID-1 array (2 or more disks containing ident
Andrew Clausen wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have roughly 10 different types of partition tables. We hate
> them, but it looks like they won't be going away for a long time.
>
> Partition IDs seem to create a lot of confusion. For example,
> most people use 0x83 for both ext2 and reiserfs, on msd
> does partitioning slow things down?
No.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On a system with nothing but linux installed does partitioning slow
things down?
I have...
/dev/hda1 93309 27520 60972 32% /
/dev/hda3 2885812 1042304 1696916 39% /usr
/dev/hda5 4806904 1989612 2573108 44% /home
/dev/hda6 4806904913044 3649676 21% /var
/dev
Andrew Clausen writes:
> Why is this necessary? Can't the RAID drivers probe the device for
> signatures, the same way file systems do?
One possible problem I can see here is to do with removal of RAID. Think
of a RAID-1 array (2 or more disks containing identical data). The
partition can be v
Andrew Clausen writes:
> can anyone remember why we have partition IDs?
Partition IDs are not necessary. Linux works fine
when you have no partition table at all, and have a
parttab file in an initrd disk telling the kernel where
the partitions are supposed to be.
No kernel changes required. To
Russell King wrote:
>
> Andrew Clausen writes:
> > But, for "well behaved operating systems", can't we do it this way?
> > (For the dos partition table scheme, 0x83 could be our "file system
> > type", 0x82 our "swap type", or whatever)
>
> I think you're complaining about the partition IDs in t
Andrew Clausen writes:
> But, for "well behaved operating systems", can't we do it this way?
> (For the dos partition table scheme, 0x83 could be our "file system
> type", 0x82 our "swap type", or whatever)
I think you're complaining about the partition IDs in this thread, and not
the partition "
Brian Gerst wrote:
> For compatability with dual booting other operating systems. Would you
> want Windows walking over your ext2 filesystems? Linux didn't invent
> the partition table schemes, it just borrows from those that are most
> common for a given architecture (ie. msdos on PC compatable
Andrew Clausen wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have roughly 10 different types of partition tables. We hate
> them, but it looks like they won't be going away for a long time.
>
> Partition IDs seem to create a lot of confusion. For example,
> most people use 0x83 for both ext2 and reiserfs, on msd
Hi all,
We have roughly 10 different types of partition tables. We hate
them, but it looks like they won't be going away for a long time.
Partition IDs seem to create a lot of confusion. For example,
most people use 0x83 for both ext2 and reiserfs, on msdos
partition tables. People use "Apple
23 matches
Mail list logo
