From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [klibc] Re: Exporting which partitions to md-configure Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:46:59 -0800 Message-ID: <43E8C0F3.5080205@zytor.com> References: <43DEB4B8.5040607@zytor.com> <17374.47368.715991.422607@cse.unsw.edu.au> <43DEC095.2090507@zytor.com> <17374.50399.1898.458649@cse.unsw.edu.au> <43DEC5DC.1030709@zytor.com> <17382.43646.567406.987585@cse.unsw.edu.au> <43E80A5A.5040002@zytor.com> <20060207104311.GD22221@percy.comedia.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060207104311.GD22221@percy.comedia.it> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Luca Berra Cc: Neil Brown , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, klibc list , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids Luca Berra wrote: > >> This, in fact is *EXACTLY* what we're talking about; it does require >> autoassemble. Why do we care about the partition types at all? The >> reason is that since the md superblock is at the end, it doesn't get >> automatically wiped if the partition is used as a raw filesystem, and >> so it's important that there is a qualifier for it. > > I don't like using partition type as a qualifier, there is people who do > not wish to partition their drives, there are systems not supporting > msdos like partitions, heck even m$ is migrating away from those. > That's why we're talking about non-msdos partitioning schemes. > In any case if that has to be done it should be done into mdadm, not > in a different scrip that is going to call mdadm (behaviour should be > consistent between mdadm invoked by initramfs and mdadm invoked on a > running system). Agreed. mdadm is the best place for it. > If the user wants to reutilize a device that was previously a member of > an md array he/she should use mdadm --zero-superblock to remove the > superblock. > I see no point in having a system that tries to compensate for users not > following correct procedures. sorry. You don't? That surprises me... making it harder for the user to have accidental data loss sounds like a very good thing to me. -hpa