Page 1 of 1
was 'extened partition' designed a little complex?
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:10 am
by miaowei
i doubt that 'extend partition' was disigned a little complex.
why not we take EBR(extended boot record) as the first sector of a logical partition ? Then, we can get a more pure 'link list'.
Is there a reason to do a secondary positioning by reading the first entry of partition-table in EBR?
Re: was 'extened partition' designed a little complex?
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:13 am
by Octocontrabass
The first sector of the logical partition already belongs to the filesystem in that partition, so it cannot be combined with the EBR.
Re: was 'extened partition' designed a little complex?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:46 am
by miaowei
Octocontrabass wrote:The first sector of the logical partition already belongs to the filesystem in that partition, so it cannot be combined with the EBR.
Excuse me, as far as i know, filesystem seldoms touchs the first sector of a device(or partition), thier superblock usually starts from 1K。
Re: was 'extened partition' designed a little complex?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:57 am
by Octocontrabass
Extended partitions were designed to work in DOS, which uses FAT. FAT places the superblock in the first sector of the partition, so the EBR cannot be located there.
Re: was 'extened partition' designed a little complex?
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:01 am
by miaowei
Octocontrabass wrote:Extended partitions were designed to work in DOS, which uses FAT. FAT places the superblock in the first sector of the partition, so the EBR cannot be located there.
Great!
I will take a look at FAT.