On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Bret Lambert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 02:30:23PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:17:27AM -0400, John Hynes wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Stefan Sperling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > What commands did you run to "copy" the disklabel? > > > Oh - I did a "disklabel sd0 > disklabel.sd2; disklabel -R sd2 > disklabel.sd2" > > > > Did that change the duid of sd2? > > > > If it didn't, it's a bug; from revision 1.163 of disklabel.c: > > When restoring a disklabel do not restore the uid. Let the kernel > allocate > a new uid instead. > I just confirmed on the box in question as well - DUIDs are all different, as expected. -John On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Bret Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 02:30:23PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:17:27AM -0400, John Hynes wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Stefan Sperling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > What commands did you run to "copy" the disklabel? > > > Oh - I did a "disklabel sd0 > disklabel.sd2; disklabel -R sd2 > disklabel.sd2" > > > > Did that change the duid of sd2? > > > > If it didn't, it's a bug; from revision 1.163 of disklabel.c: > > When restoring a disklabel do not restore the uid. Let the kernel > allocate > a new uid instead.
