From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: Proper partition type for components with V1.x superblocks? Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:10:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4872A248.7060904@dgreaves.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> <48725312.6090201@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48725312.6090201@zytor.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Neil Brown , Doug Ledford , Peter Rabbitson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. I thought that. But then I asked why? Couldn't come up with a decent reason. non-fs seems to cover everything. David