On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:04:26AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > > The PR rather leads to the conclusion that the support for > > > old Partition IDs in disklabel(8) is suboptimal. > > > Originally, the code did only consider a partition with the > > > old ID if no new one was found. This apparently got broken > > > when extended partition support was added years later. > > > > Yeah, that's a valid point. I guess the question then is whether > > fixing that will prevent any problematic cases from arising... and > > whether at this point it's worth worrying about. > > Possibly the code should be willing to locate and process such a label. > Possibly even write it back. > But it probably shouldn't 'corrupt' it - ie leave it as a valid label > (doesn't it contain sector number relative to the ptn iteself? > so can't describe any other parts of the disk?)
Are *our* ancient disklabels partition-relative? It's so long ago that I'm not sure... but the code in currently in disklabel(8) doesn't appear to know anything at all about partition-relative labels. Given the rest of the discussion here, the fact that fixing disklabel(8) properly isn't completely trivial, and tls's recent experience, I think the feature should just be turned off in disklabel... but, just in case, not removed entirely until we branch netbsd-6. Does anyone object to this course of action? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org