On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Rod Smith wrote: > All that said, there is a further complication, and this one isn't parted's > fault: The 0xDA type code that's suggested by the mdadm man page is NOT > specific to Linux RAID. According to > http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition_types-1.html, it refers to > "non-FS data"; and according to > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_type, it can be that or a Powercopy > backup. There may be other specific tools that use it, too. Thus, I'd be a > little wary of just switching 0xFD to 0xDA as the MBR RAID flag in parted. > IMHO, what's needed is some coordination between mdadm, parted, fdisk, and > gdisk authors to settle on a standard for this.
I don't think anyone is suggesting a change to the raid flag. I was planning on adding support for arbitrary values so that anything can be set instead of playing whack-a-mole as things change. The compelling reason for the change, other than just following mdadm's suggestion is Doug's example scenario from the bz entry: "It's possible, although it means you have a broken setup, that you could have a version 1.1 or 1.2 superblock and a version 0.90 on the same device, and kernel autodetect could assemble it as a version 0.90 device and corrupt the real device. Likewise, if you use 0x83, then the kernel filesystem and udev filesystem detection code might find something you don't want found." -- Brian C. Lane | Anaconda Team | IRC: bcl #anaconda | Port Orchard, WA (PST8PDT)
