Erik,


Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:37:49AM -0700, Suzuki Kp wrote:
> 
>>Erik Mouw wrote:
>>
>>>I disagree. It's perfectly valid for a disk not to have a partition
>>>table (for example: components of a RAID5 MD device) and we shouldn't
>>>scare users about that. Also an unrecognised partition table format
>>>(DEC VMS, Novell Netware, etc.) is not a reason to throw an error, it's
>>>just unrecognised and as far as the kernel knows it's unpartioned.
>>

[...]


Thank you very much for the inputs.

As per the discussion I have made the changes to the patch.

This change needs to be implemented in some of the partition checkers 
which doesn't do that already.

Btw, do you think it is a good idea to let the other partition checkers 
run, even if one of them has failed ?

Right now, the check_partition runs the partition checkers in a 
sequential manner, until it finds a success or an error.


Comments ?

Thanks,

Suzuki