Thanks for the patch!
I wondered about
> -#define BSDI_PARTITION 0xb7 /* BSDI Partition ID */
> +#define BSDI_PARTITION 0x9f /* BSDI Partition ID */
You write:
> The first patch is fairly trivial: it changes the value for the unused
> BSDI_PARTITION flag (which was wrong: I have BSDI 2.1 and 4.1 here, and
> both of them failed to see their own partitions after changing their flag
> to 0xb7).
but the use of 0xb7 and 0xb8 for BSDI seems well established.
Is going to 0x9f a recent change? Or are these different systems?
Does the BSDI fdisk have a list of types built-in?
For the time being I suppose we should accept both 0xb7 and 0x9f.
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:38 EST