From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.udm.ru ([217.14.192.20] helo=aps.mark-itt.ru) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 15aD8N-0002ol-00 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:20:11 +0100 Received: from [195.161.198.29] (HELO 127.0.0.1) by aps.mark-itt.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP id 13867621 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:26:07 +0500 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:27:20 +0500 From: ASA Reply-To: ASA Message-ID: <11219204985.20010824142720@mail.ru> To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re[2]: BLKRRPART bug in NFTL? In-reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello Alexandru, > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:15:29 +0800 > From: Alexandru Harsanyi > Subject: Re: BLKRRPART bug in NFTL? > > I'm not sure about that, but I think DOC should be formated/partitioned > with nftl_format, not *fdisk. What? I mean logical partitions, or any kind of logical layer. In other words, I want to have /dev/nftla1 and /dev/nftla2, not /dev/nftla and /dev/nftlb According documentation, nftl_format is designed to "unhose" virgin chip and destroys firmware BIOS as said recently (in this list). Isn't it? In other words, I think that nftl_format can be compared with fdformat, not mformat - they operates on different layers. -- Best regards, ASA mailto:atris@mail.ru