On Thursday July 3, dledford@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 15:02 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > Why 0xDA? > > > > As far as I know, the closest thing there is to a registry is the list > > that aeb at least used to maintain. Yes. http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html lists 0xDA as da Non-FS Data Added on request of John Hardin (johnh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). which is the closest we could come to "you won't want to look at or do anything to this partition". > > Actually, if you are going to use version 1 superblocks anyway, then > just list the partitions as normal linux partitions. The whole > linux-raid-autodetect partition type was originally only for auto detect > at bootup. If you weren't using that feature, then standard linux type > was good enough. And if you use version 1.1 or 1.2 superblocks, then > you really don't have anything to worry about since the location of the > superblock and the data start offset means that the partition won't get > accidentally recognized as a non-raid partition. But if you use 1.0, then some well-meaning install program might mount one drive from a raid1 as a filesystem, write to it, and get your RAID all out of sync. The whole point of this exercise was to find a way to make sure code that took the partition type to mean something didn't make the wrong decision. 0xDA seems the best answer for that. 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
