Re: LBA48 partitioning scheme

It's my understanding that the xbox-linux kernel currently detects the 
fatx 'F' and 'G' partitions if present (as hda55 and hda56 
respectively). This is achieved by having the starting sectors hardcoded 
into the Xbox partition detection code.

What happens currently if someone using Paul's partitioning scheme 
defines a fatx partition which starts at the same sector as either 'F' 
or 'G' would but ends at a different location? Will Linux still detect 
it as hda55/hda56 but with the wrong size? If it does will this result 
in data corruption upon writing to the partition, or are there checks to 
stop this?

If the combination of a xbox-linux kernel supporting only hardcoded F 
and G partitions + usage of Paul's partitioning scheme results in data 
loss then surely there is a good case for making the kernel aware of the 
Paul's partitioning scheme in some way.

However if there are already checks to prevent this situation from 
occouring please ignore everything I just said.

David Pye wrote:

>
>
>I don't intend to come across as hostile in a personal sense, so please don't 
>interpret my response as such.
>
>Personally, my feelings are that xbox-linux should not go out of its way to 
>support 'illegal' stuff on the xbox - and a partition table designed for use 
>with an illegal bios, and ONLY with an illegal bios (e.g. evox, xecuter 
>bioses) falls into that category.
>
>I suspect that most of the team probably feel this way, although I don't 
>pretend to speak for them.  
>
>We have made an effort to support things that fall into one of two categories:
>
>a)  Things that interoperate with the legal, and pre-existing MS applications 
>- fatx, and MS partition support, basically.
>
>b)  Things that are linux-native.
>
>Supporting this partition table 'standard', which is basically the de-facto 
>standard for illegal bioses, and is used by nothing else, falls into neither 
>of those categories.
>
>While this of course doesn't restrict your freedom in posting your patches to 
>this list, I think it is something that we (we being the developers with CVS 
>commit access ;) ) should consider, and decide whether to alter the above 
>outlined policy.    My personal feeling is that we shouldn't, but I would be 
>keen to hear, and obviously respect the feelings of the majority.
>
>Also, from a technical sense, I dislike another type of partition table 
>layout, especially with such a narrow area of usefulness.   The existing xbox 
>hardcoded partition offsets are bad enough, without another quirky system 
>which is xbox-only.  
>
>David
>
>  
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Yahoo.
Introducing Yahoo! Search Developer Network - Create apps using Yahoo!
Search APIs Find out how you can build Yahoo! directly into your own
Applications - visit http://developer.yahoo.net/?fr=offad-ysdn-ostg-q22005