From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 18:41:05 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186B71065675 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:41:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D238FC31 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:41:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id UAA09352; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:40:52 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Nohsp-0000eJ-TI; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:40:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4B9544B3.80203@icyb.net.ua> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:40:51 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20100211) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Moolenaar References: <3158041B-8E00-4A87-8172-741C0AE57131@mac.com> <4B954367.3070804@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pete French , freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another gpt vs mbr (sanity) check X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:41:05 -0000 on 08/03/2010 20:36 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: > On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 08/03/2010 19:55 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: >>> On Mar 8, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Pete French wrote: >>>> The queston is then, why isn't Windows treating it as GPT ? >>> Ask Microsoft. So far I've only seen violations to the spec. At >>> least Apple kept to the spirit of it... >> According to my understanding it's the opposite as much as I hate saying this. >> My understanding is that valid GPT scheme _must_ provide only a protective MBR, >> i.e. MBR where there is only partition and it is of type 0xEE. >> That is, any "hybrid MBR" is not a valid GPT scheme. >> Google turns up a lot of stuff on this topic. > > Exactly. That is exactly the violation of the spec I was referring > to. I am not which part of what I said you meant by 'that'. -- Andriy Gapon