Comment 5 for bug 1650300

------- Comment From <email address hidden> 2017-01-11 10:18 EDT-------
Hi Dimitri,

FBA DASDs must be treated differently from regular DASDs, i.e. to create a partition, you should use fdisk, parted etc. and not fdasd.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Please excuse my ignorance, but I am working under the assumption that FBA
> devices should be partitioned using DASD partitioning table just like the
> ECKD drives (using fdasd tool). If this is wrong, and e.g. ms-dos partition
> table should be used for FBA devices, we need to change the logic that
> decides which partitioning tables to use in the installer.
>
> I can reproduce this bug, in a sense that kernel manages to read DASD
> partitioning table, and partitions, off FBA device including volume label,
> yet userspace tools parted and fdasd cannot.
>
> syslog:
> Jan 11 07:07:27 kernel: [ 156.679393] dasd-fba 0.0.0104: New FBA DASD
> 9336/10 (CU 6310/80) with 59025 MB and 512 B/blk
> Jan 11 07:07:27 kernel: [ 156.682792] dasdb:VOL1/ 0X0104: dasdb1 dasdb2
>
> # cat /proc/dasd/devices
> 0.0.0104(FBA ) at ( 94: 4) is dasdb : active at blocksize: 512,
> 120884827 blocks, 59025 MB
>
> # cat /proc/partitions | grep dasdb
> 94 4 60442413 dasdb
> 94 5 585920 dasdb1
> 94 6 59856256 dasdb2
>
> # fdasd -p /dev/dasdb
>
> fdasd error: Unsupported disk type
> /dev/dasdb is not an ECKD disk! This disk type is not supported!
>
> # fdasd -f -p /dev/dasdb
> reading volume label ..:
> Cannot show requested information because the disk label block is invalid
> exiting...
>
> # parted /dev/dasdb print
> Model: IBM S390 DASD drive (dasd)
> Disk /dev/dasdb: 61.9GB
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
> Partition Table: dasd
> Disk Flags:
>
> Number Start End Size File system Flags
> 1 1024B 61.9GB 61.9GB