Re: total sector size in disklabel != the size of raid (was: full-disc partition)

[mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)]

mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost (Mouse) writes:

>Perhaps are far as the "get size" interface raidframe uses is
>concerned.  But it's not _just_ that; see my note upthread about how
>the disk drivers treat RAW_PART.  And _nothing_ can be "just a
>partition in the disklabel" when there isn't any disklabel.

I'm not talking about disklabel(5) but about disklabel(9). Every disk
has one, even where there are not valid bits on the disk.

>Note also that using RAW_PART as raidframe members, for some kinds of
>RAID and some kinds of label, runs the risk of the RAID pseudo-disk's
>label being mistaken for the component disk's label.

Shouldn't happen as both have different positions.

-- 
-- 
                                Michael van Elst
Internet: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost
                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."