From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A65EC54D for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 13:41:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6843FFB0 for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 13:41:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E2EAEFA5 for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 13:41:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BBE7F4310D; Tue, 3 May 2022 13:41:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 13:41:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Stoiko Ivanov Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220503110847.2396527-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220503133915.3eb8d77a@rosa.proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20220503133915.3eb8d77a@rosa.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.919 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.596 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [diskmanage.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] Diskmanage: check for extended partitions X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 11:41:19 -0000 On 5/3/22 13:39, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2022 13:08:47 +0200 > Dominik Csapak wrote: > >> those would not get assinged a usage and thus appear in the list >> when we want to select a partition (e.g. for creating a zpool) >> >> since we cannot do anything with such a partition, return the usage >> 'Extended Partition' for these. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> PVE/Diskmanage.pm | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm >> index d67cc6b..f693d00 100644 >> --- a/PVE/Diskmanage.pm >> +++ b/PVE/Diskmanage.pm >> @@ -647,6 +647,8 @@ sub get_disks { >> if $parttype eq 'c12a7328-f81f-11d2-ba4b-00a0c93ec93b'; >> return 'ZFS reserved' >> if $parttype eq '6a945a3b-1dd2-11b2-99a6-080020736631'; >> + return 'Extended Partition' >> + if $parttype eq '0x5'; > This looks like a MBR partitiontype (both the length and the concept of > extended partition seem MBR-related) - Do we want to support MBR disks? > (we do not in the installer and when initializing a new disk) > Any pointer to where this could be needed? > > Really meant as an expression of my confusion - am fine if we want to > support this and the patch LGTM. > i mean we don't have to, i just ran into that when installing on top of debian10 -> pve6 -> pve7 so it might not be that useful...