Re: devfs and /proc/ide/hda

2001-02-28 Thread Glenn McGrath
Helge Hafting wrote: > > Glenn McGrath wrote: > > > > Im running kernel 2.4.1, I have entries like /proc/ide/hda, > > /proc/ide/ide0/hda etc irrespective of wether im using devfs or > > traditional device names. > > > > Is always using traditional

devfs and /proc/ide/hda

2001-02-28 Thread Glenn McGrath
Im running kernel 2.4.1, I have entries like /proc/ide/hda, /proc/ide/ide0/hda etc irrespective of wether im using devfs or traditional device names. Is always using traditional device names for /proc/ide intentional, or is it something nobody has gotten around to fixing yet? Glenn - To unsubsc

Re: Partition IDs in the New World TM

2001-01-23 Thread Glenn McGrath
Andrew Clausen wrote: > > Bryan Henderson wrote: > > Incidentally, I just realized that the common name "partition ID" > > for this value is quite a misnomer. As far as I know, it has > > never identified the partition, but rather described its contents. > > Yes, "partition type ID" is better.

Re: Partition IDs in the New World TM

2001-01-22 Thread Glenn McGrath
Andrew Clausen wrote: > > Hi all, > > We have roughly 10 different types of partition tables. We hate > them, but it looks like they won't be going away for a long time. > > Partition IDs seem to create a lot of confusion. For example, > most people use 0x83 for both ext2 and reiserfs, on msd