From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 9 08:26:28 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 4CD74106567C for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:26:28 +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 8B09E8FC1C for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:26:27 +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 KAA19672; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:26:22 +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 1Noulh-0003lC-Jc; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:26:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4B960629.8060208@icyb.net.ua> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:26:17 +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> <4B9544B3.80203@icyb.net.ua> <03BFAAEC-6C59-48EF-BED9-2E68ED03E2B6@mac.com> <4B956533.2010900@icyb.net.ua> <4B958210.70108@icyb.net.ua> <252BDE43-6021-486A-B4BD-E003F4B07B1A@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <252BDE43-6021-486A-B4BD-E003F4B07B1A@mac.com> 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: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:26:28 -0000 on 09/03/2010 01:21 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: > On Mar 8, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> In short, Apple bootcamp creates an invalid PMBR according to their >>> own technote. >> It's not only the technote, it's the GPT spec itself. > > Actually, no. The spec clearly states that LBA 0 contains a > protective MBR for the GPT format (UEFI 2.0, paragraph 5.3.1 > on page 90). Paragraph 5.2 just the background information so > that there's something to refer to... > Isn't this what I said? And paragraph 5.2.3 clearly states what constitutes a protective MBR (as opposed to legacy MBR). I am looking at Version 2.3 Errata B. -- Andriy Gapon