From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Proper partition type for components with V1.x superblocks? Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:02:43 -0700 Message-ID: <486BFB03.7060100@zytor.com> References: <484F9A3E.7020709@rabbit.us> <18512.25940.653867.623185@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18512.25940.653867.623185@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: Peter Rabbitson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Neil Brown wrote: > On Wednesday June 11, rabbit+list@rabbit.us 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 (almost) alway make arrays out of whole devices, not partitions, so > I really never thought about this. > > I suspect 0xDA is safest and hence best. > I wonder if this should be suggested in the mdadm man page > anywhere.... anyone feel like creating a patch? > Why 0xDA? As far as I know, the closest thing there is to a registry is the list that aeb at least used to maintain. -hpa