From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karel Zak Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux v2.22-rc1 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:31:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20120730073151.GA5845@x2.net.home> References: <20120727073719.GC15787@x2.net.home> <8C224544-0713-4419-8398-145D8A44B301@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34812 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233Ab2G3Hby (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:31:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8C224544-0713-4419-8398-145D8A44B301@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Andreas, On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 06:23:04PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > Do we really need separate names for partition labels vs. filesystem > labels? Sure, I think that use the same tag for two different things is bad confusing idea. > They are supposed to be unique already, so mount should be able to > find the same partition regardless of whether the source is a > partition UUID/LABEL vs. a filesystem label? It just makes things > more confusing for users, IMHO. Our users are smart enough to distinguish between partitions and filesystems. BTW, PARTUUID= is already supported by Linux kernel to specify root device and it's already supported by udevd for device identification (/dev/disk/by-partuuid). Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com