From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: Time to deprecate old RAID formats? Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:00:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20071027080035.GC12053@percy.comedia.it> References: <1192810534.1666.68.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.56684.14194.630264@stoffel.org> <1192813877.1666.79.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.63987.514073.184865@stoffel.org> <20071019212303.GB2013@teal.hq.k1024.org> <1192830129.1666.103.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <20071020075349.GA17431@teal.hq.k1024.org> <1192885917.1666.112.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <20071026095417.GC32550@percy.comedia.it> <1193424779.10336.287.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1193424779.10336.287.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:52:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:54 +0200, Luca Berra wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> just apply some rules, so if you find a partition table _AND_ an md >> superblock at the end, read both and you can tell if it is an md on a >> partition or a partitioned md raid1 device. > >In fact, no you can't. I know, because I've created a device that had >both but wasn't a raid device. And it's matching partner still existed >too. What you are talking about would have misrecognized this >situation, guaranteed. then just ignore the device and log a warning, instead of doing a random choice. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \