Hi Drew, On 25/01/2011 14:26, Drew Fisher wrote: > Darren and Dermot, > > I'm perfectly fine with removing the extended_partition entry based on > what you guys said. I didn't realize (and will add a much needed > comment to the DTD file explaining) the convention of 1-4 being primary > and 5-36 being logical.
Ok, thanks. > > Are both of you ok with moving the in_zpool/in_vdev attribute up to the > <disk> level? > I'm not sure what you mean by this last part... AFAIR, in_zpool/in_vdev should be on a Disk, Partition or Slice. OK, it's not valid in certain circumstances (e.g. a partition that is an extended partition), but that's down to validation. Did I miss something? Thanks, Darren. _______________________________________________ caiman-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
