On Friday May 26, hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > I had no idea about this particular configuration requirement. None of > > just to be clear: it's not a requirement. if you want the very nice > auto-assembling behavior, you need to designate the auto-assemblable > partitions. but you can assemble "manually" without 0xfd partitions > (even if that's in an initrd, for instance.) > > I think the current situation is good, since there is some danger of > going too far. for instance, testing each partition to see whether > it contains a valid superblock would be pretty crazy, right? I'm curious: why exactly do you say that? Doing the reads themselves cannot be a problem as the kernel already reads the partition table from each devices. Reading superblocks is no big deal. If you don't like the idea of assembling everything that was found, how is that different from..... requiring > either the "auto-assemble-me" partition type, or explicit partitions > given in a config file is a happy medium... assembling everything that was found which had an 'auto-assemble-me' flag? That flag, in common usage, contains almost zero information more than the existence of the raid superblock. Am I missing something? My opinion: the "auto-assemble-me" partition type is not a happy medium. The superblock containing the hostname (as supported by mdadm-2.5) is (I hope). NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
