From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 1 23:58:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9417437B401 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:58:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2B943EC5 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:58:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB27vkfN002617; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:57:47 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: Riccardo Torrini , Terry Lambert , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Nate Lawson , Bruce Evans Subject: Re: Trivial patch: fdisk doesn't recognize my partitions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Dec 2002 02:43:02 EST." Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:57:46 +0100 Message-ID: <2615.1038815866@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Garance A Drosihn writes: >This still sounds a little too definitive to me, as if we are >absolutely sure what that partition is. I think that's where >some of the debate came from. I (for one) wouldn't be quite so >jumpy about the idea, if we changed it to: > >real ,{0x0B, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT"} >gad-idea ,{0x1B, "Possibly a Hidden DOS or Windows 95, FAT32"} > >real ,{0x0C, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT (LBA)"} >gad-idea ,{0x1C, "Possibly a Hidden DOS or Windows 95, FAT32 (LBA)"} > >I wouldn't mind there being an informational message in fdisk >like that, as long as it is clear the system will not try to do >anything with these hidden partitions. Well, you are wasting peoples time right now, because there is no way this will get sufficient priority to get into 5.0-RC1. And as I said before: _If_ we want to support this "hidden" feature, we should not do so by doubling the size of the table, but by scanning it again looking for a match with the 0x10 bit flipped. I will not even consider it until I get a patch implemented that way. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message