Crystal Kolipe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 01:27:25PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2022/01/06 09:56, Crystal Kolipe wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 11:11:30AM -0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > You can create more than one "fdisk partition" but there's not much > > > > point in doing so. It doesn't give you any extra "disklabel partitions". > > > > > > There is a niche use case for multiple OpenBSD MBR partitions, though: > > > > I said "not much" rather than "no" for a reason. I didn't think it was > > really helpful to go into more details of things which are possible but > > inadvisable. > > I agree that such a partitioning scheme isn't very useful in practice, but > I think the example helps people to understand that the BSD disklabel does > not live "inside" the OpenBSD MBR partition. > > There seems to be this kind of urban myth that the MBR partitioning scheme > is treated as the "overall" disk layout and that the OpenBSD partition is > then "sub-divided" into pieces which only matter to OpenBSD. Then people > start making wrong assumptions, such as that the disklabel is always in > the same location, that it's portable between architectures, that a disk > without an OpenBSD MBR partition can't have a disklabel, and that changes > to the MBR partitions will or should be reflected in the disklabel > automatically. >
and then there is sparc64, with *five* possible disk descriptive layouts, some of which don't even have a "struct disklabel" on the disk. At some point we have to step back and say: We've written a scheme that works for us. Who cares what inaccuracies people believe?
