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: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:32:02 -0700 Message-ID: <48725312.6090201@zytor.com> References: <484F9A3E.7020709@rabbit.us> <18512.25940.653867.623185@notabene.brown> <486BFB03.7060100@zytor.com> <1215062276.14196.6.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18545.35548.800516.532854@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: <18545.35548.800516.532854@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Cc: Doug Ledford , Peter Rabbitson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Neil Brown wrote: > On Thursday July 3, dledford@redhat.com wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 15:02 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> 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. > > Yes. > http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html > lists 0xDA as > > da Non-FS Data > > Added on request of John Hardin (johnh@aproposretail.com). > > which is the closest we could come to "you won't want to look at > or do anything to this partition". > But that's not really what it is, either. The best would be to pick a new partition identifier entirely. -hpa