lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sgi partitionning fix (Was: 2.6.0-test1 on alpha : disk label numbering trouble)
Date
You wrote :
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:45:12PM +0200, Ghozlane Toumi wrote:
>
> > However, I found out that sgi partitionning had this "renumbering"
> > issue even before viro's patch.
> > I don't know if this is correct, in any case this is an untested patch
> > that changes this behaviour for sgi partitions.
> > patch is attached because of dumb mailer.
> > --------------------
> > for(i = 0; i < 16; i++, p++) {
> > blocks = be32_to_cpu(p->num_blocks);
> > start = be32_to_cpu(p->first_block);
> > if (blocks)
> > - put_partition(state, slot++, start, blocks);
> > + put_partition(state, i+1, start, blocks);
> > }
> > --------------------
>
> Hmm. The previous change was not because there is something
> intrinsically good with some way of numbering partitions,
> but because it is very inconvenient when partition numbering
> changes.
Yes, you are right. It's just tht looking at similar paritionning code,
like osf, sun, ultrix, I didn't see/know why sgi would be different.
but I've never approached an sgi in my life and thus don't know
anything about irix partitionnnig uses.

> But here the 2.6 behaviour is already that of 2.4.21, and you
> change away from that. Not a good idea.

Agreed, obviously.

ghoz

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.090 / U:5.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site