From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 22 18:58:52 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED0516A469 for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 18:58:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig@tobuj.gank.org) Received: from ion.gank.org (ion.gank.org [69.55.238.164]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A90013C45E for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 18:58:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig@tobuj.gank.org) Received: by ion.gank.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2167011245; Tue, 22 May 2007 13:58:50 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:58:43 -0500 From: Craig Boston To: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <20070522185843.GB15806@nowhere> Mail-Followup-To: Craig Boston , Marcel Moolenaar , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras References: <20070522134224.GA15806@nowhere> <947EA233-415A-4086-A965-76C6EF6A8830@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <947EA233-415A-4086-A965-76C6EF6A8830@mac.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: GPT boot loader? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:58:52 -0000 On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:34:02PM -0400, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > GPT is not designed to be a sub-partitioning scheme. It can not be > used within a partition. As such, absolute block addresses are the > same as relative block addresses. As such, no mistake has been made > yet. Ah, that does make sense. Does the GPT specification actually say absolute block addresses? That would seem to be redundant if the spec also forbids its use inside a partition. I can't seem to find the actual documents for GPT anywhere. > FreeBSD actually creates a GPT with relative addresses, which means > that if we allow it to be used to sub-partition partitions, it would > not have the same problem as the BSD label. I suppose we're being nonstandard either way, so I'll keep my fingers crossed that this continues to be the case :) Thanks for the clarification. Craig