Re: GEOM_PART: a quick update on logical partitions

Ivan Voras wrote:
> 2009/2/3 Maxim Sobolev <sobomax_at_freebsd.org>:
>> Ivan Voras wrote:
>>> Marius Nünnerich wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not happy with the symlinks either. When someone is manipulating a
>>>> partition table she should be able to live with the consequences. I
>>>> would rather go for the UUID in UFS header approach if there is enough
>>>> room. BTW I implemented GPT UUID glabels a while ago please see:
>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=128398
>>> I have a patch for UFS "GUID" labels (not exactly GUIDs, but every UFS
>>> file system has a reasonably unique ID associated with it) but have
>>> encountered what seems a bug in GEOM slicers - two dev entries pointing
>>> to the same device don't work well with orphaning/tasting. Have you
>>> encountered something similar perhaps?
>> Why exactly do we need UFS "GUID" labels, when we already have GEOM_LABEL,
>> which works just fine with UFS.
> 
> So people don't need to make up dummy labels for dozens of file systems :)
> 
> Also, "UFS GUIDs" are always present, even in root file systems
> created by sysinstall by default. It's a good idea.

sysinstall can auto-generate labels and use them to generate fstab, 
right now it leaves UFS label empty anyway. This should cover 99.99% of 
all cases. I just worried that instead of one labeling scheme we would 
end up with 10, neither of which is really well supported.

-Maxim