From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 14 08:21:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D091E6 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:21:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (cain.gsoft.com.au [203.31.81.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973021B78 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.109.44.188] ([1.125.234.7]) (authenticated bits=0) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r5E8L8l9006425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:51:14 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Subject: Re: zpool labelclear destroys GPT data Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: "Daniel O'Connor" In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:51:08 +0930 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <51B9BB14.6020103@gmail.com> <51BA381C.8070900@gmail.com> <51BAC7D1.70208@gmail.com> <0A53B6AA-9614-42E9-8AA1-82233426EEE6@gsoft.com.au> To: Alban Hertroys X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-Spam-Score: -0.272 () BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 203.31.81.10 Cc: Johan Hendriks , Kimmo Paasiala , freebsd-stable X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:21:24 -0000 On 14/06/2013, at 17:48, Alban Hertroys wrote: > IMHO it would be helpful to verify what's there first and warn the = user about it if such an operation will overwrite a different type of = label than what is about to get written there. > Perhaps it should even refuse to write (by issuing an error stating = that there is already a label there - and preferably also what type) = until the label that's already there gets explicitly cleared by the user = or until the command gets forced. > Does that make sense? The problem with this is that then each label tool needs to know about = every other label format you want to detect for.. If a label format has a checksum then you could ignore a request to nuke = the label if there is no valid checksum (with a flag to force). No idea = how many have checksums though.. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C