[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: partman problems (sparc and elsewhere)

On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:36:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Or partition we are mounting without formating if its type doesn't
> > correspond to the file system it contains.
> Well, i don't think so, not automatically at least. 

(Lib)parted repairs the wrong partition types in all cases.  In some
cases partman will not write the partition table but if it has to for
some reason then the partition type will be changed.

> > At the time when some partition is being formatted (or simply sceduled
> > for mounting) the partition table may already contain physical volumes
> > of activated volume groups.
> So what ? a raid or LVM partition is simply a partition with a given flag. The
> fact that you modify the other partition on the partition table should in no
> way affect any raid or lvm partitions you have,

The kernel will complain that it can not reread the partition table.
This complain is not dangerous and partman can probably safely hide it
from the user but this already is not nice.

Moreover the confirmation dialog contains a list of the changed
partition tables.  If we decide to write all partition tables to the
disk just because they contain some formatted partition this means that
they have to be included in this list.  In most cases this list will
contain all partition tables and because of that it will be less

I think I can take the partition type from the structures of parted but
I wonder the format of these structures can change in future versions of

> and you should also in no way
> try to put a partition table on a raid or lvm partition. It is currently
> possible in partman, but it is a bug, since the kernel will then not be able
> to boot the given system, nor mount them.

Yes, of course.

Anton Zinoviev

Reply to: