From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Rabbitson Subject: Re: Proper partition type for components with V1.x superblocks? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:35:36 +0200 Message-ID: <484FB888.1030205@rabbit.us> References: <484F9A3E.7020709@rabbit.us> <484FB5E5.8000207@dgreaves.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <484FB5E5.8000207@dgreaves.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Greaves Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids David Greaves wrote: > Peter Rabbitson wrote: >> Hello, >> >> The subject pretty much says it all - it obviously is not 0xFD, since >> there is nothing to autodetect. Is there some best >> practice/semi-standard way of marking a raid component partition as >> such? After reading the specs 0xDA (non-fs data) comes to mind, but I >> figured I'll ask here. > > I recently wondered if there should be a new partition type. > > Partitioning tools look for (and sometimes find!) filesystems on 0x83 partitions > so 0x83 is out (anyone splitting a mirror should be happy changing the type back) > > I'd rather that rescue disk didn't think 'oh, I'll use that swap partition', so > 0x82 is out. > > I don't want md trying to autodetect and complaining so, as you say, 0xfd is out. > > I think it would be nice to mark them as 0xFC Nope. As per [1] (which is linked in [2]): fc VMware Swap partition What is the process for partition type registration anyway? How did 0xFD come around? Peter [1] http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(computing)