Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] vvfat: introduce partitioned option

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes:

> Am 10.11.2025 um 14:20 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
>> BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Clément Chigot wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:07 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Clément Chigot <chigot@adacore.com> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>> This option tells whether a hard disk should be partitioned or not. It
>> >>>> defaults to true and have the prime effect of preventing a master boot
>> >>>> record (MBR) to be initialized.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is useful as some operating system (QNX, Rtems) don't
>> >>>> recognized FAT mounted disks (especially SD cards) if a MBR is present.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Chigot <chigot@adacore.com>

[...]

>> >>> Not sure I like "partitioned".  Is a disk with an MBR and a partition
>> >>> table contraining a single partition partitioned?  Call it "mbr"?
>> >>
>> >> It used to be called "mbr/no-mbr" but Kevin suggested renaming it in
>> >> V1. Honestly I'm fine with both options:
>> >> - Technically, the option prevents MBR which has a side effect for
>> >> preventing partition tables
>> 
>> Yes, because the partition table is part of the MBR.  I'd rather name
>> the option after the entire thing it controls, not one of its parts.
>> 
>> >> - Even it has a single partition, I think it makes sense to call a
>> >> disk "partitioned" as long as it has a partition table
>> >>
>> >> But I'm not that familiar with disk formats, etc. I'll let you decide
>> >> with Kevin, which one you prefer.
>> 
>> Kevin is the maintainer, I just serve as advisor here.
>
> I figured that the meaning of "partitioned" is easier to understand for
> a casual user than having or not having an MBR ("I don't want to boot
> from this disk, why would I care about a boot record?").

Fair point.

Possible counter-points:

* The default is almost always right for the casual user.  The
  exception, as far as I understand, is certain guest OSes refuse to
  play ball with certain devices when they have an MBR.

* The configuration interface isn't exactly casual-user-friendly to
  begin with.  @fat-type, what's that, and why do I care?  @floppy,
  what's that, and why do I care?

Anyway, you decide.

> But if people think that "mbr" is better, that's fine with me.
>
> The only thing I really didn't want is the negative "no-mbr" and the
> double negation in "no-mbr=off" that comes with it.

Yes, negative names should definitely be avoided for boolean options.

[...]