Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:21:53 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Riccardo Torrini <riccardo@torrini.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Trivial patch: fdisk doesn't recognize my partitions Message-ID: <3475.1038522113@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:00:29 %2B0100." <XFMail.20021128230029.riccardo@torrini.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <XFMail.20021128230029.riccardo@torrini.org>, Riccardo Torrini write s: >I have 4 primary partitions and I use a boot manager (magic.com) >that install some black magic that hide unused partition, this >permit to have multiple 'other-OS' partition that don't know of >each other (but, obviously, FreeBSD can see and mount all of them). > >As far as I know it use an EXOR 0x10 to hide/unhide but fdisk doesn't >recognize 0x0B/0x0C fat32 when hidden (0x1B/0x1C) > >This is the patch, that can be extended easily to cover the range >0x1A-0x1F (0x0A-0x0F when hidden). I simply copied strings from >0x0B/0x0C and added Hidden in front of them :-) Any comment? >(I don't know if 0x1B/0x1C are registered as used) I think this is very marginal use really... If we really wanted to support this convention, we should not add (almost-duplicate) entries in the table, but rather on missing an entry in the table, try again after xor'ing with the "hide-bit" and see if we then get a hit. But as I said, this is rather marginal and I really don't feel it should go in unless this xor-0x10 convention is more widespread. -- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3475.1038522113>