Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:06:38 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: lev@freebsd.org Cc: daniel@digsys.bg, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, ivoras@freebsd.org, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Project geom-events Message-ID: <4e8f076e.XGNH7dUgsC/mhr1j%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <672948039.20111006175334@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <1927112464.20111004220507@serebryakov.spb.ru> <4E8B7A27.5070908@quip.cz> <344794801.20111005101957@serebryakov.spb.ru> <4E8C1426.60107@quip.cz> <251861322.20111005125825@serebryakov.spb.ru> <4E8C6E85.90005@quip.cz> <CACdU%2Bf8mA1wLUnHVyrJwaf89ahf2oc_904=8mme7kkBLxLSCCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E8CD662.90202@quip.cz> <j6k252$hpm$1@dough.gmane.org> <4E8D9136.6040200@digsys.bg> <672948039.20111006175334@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org> wrote: > GPT (and MBR) metadata placement is dictated from outside world, > where is no GEOM and geom_label. They INTENDED to be used on DISKS. > BIOSes should be able to find it :) Certainly GPT and MBR must place an instance of the partition table where the BIOS expects it, but there's no immediately obvious reason why they must regard that instance as their GEOM metadata. GPT puts a second copy in the provider's last block, and AFAICT it could just as well use _that_ instance -- or even a differently-formatted block that included the same data -- as the primary. MBR could do likewise.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4e8f076e.XGNH7dUgsC/mhr1j%perryh>