Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:45:28 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GEOM_PART: a quick update on logical partitions Message-ID: <4988C908.1030002@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <gm9fh1$4el$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <FCA8C5E4-BC41-4711-9EBC-CD692144F6B8@mac.com> <20090203082153.565746e2@zelda.local> <b649e5e0902030357k7508b4e7kc69c31a354b3e077@mail.gmail.com> <gm9fh1$4el$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > Marius Nünnerich wrote: > >> I'm not happy with the symlinks either. When someone is manipulating a >> partition table she should be able to live with the consequences. I >> would rather go for the UUID in UFS header approach if there is enough >> room. BTW I implemented GPT UUID glabels a while ago please see: >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=128398 > > I have a patch for UFS "GUID" labels (not exactly GUIDs, but every UFS > file system has a reasonably unique ID associated with it) but have > encountered what seems a bug in GEOM slicers - two dev entries pointing > to the same device don't work well with orphaning/tasting. Have you > encountered something similar perhaps? Why exactly do we need UFS "GUID" labels, when we already have GEOM_LABEL, which works just fine with UFS. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4988C908.1030002>