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
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
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.
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
4 matches
Mail list logo