[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ok to commit ubd patch ?
From: |
Sven Luther |
Subject: |
Re: Ok to commit ubd patch ? |
Date: |
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:02:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
Huh, forgot to CC Matt, done now.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 05:52:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:43:25AM +1100, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:31:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > It doesn't seems to be part of 1.6.20 though, an oversight ?
> >
> > It was an oversight.
>
> Ok. I had a look yesterday, and this patch is somehow dependent on the s390
> patch, which includes the DASD type. I suppose your discussion below would
> also concern this one ? I remember you telling me that the s390 author should
> do the necessary FSF paperwork to get his stuff included.
>
> > However, looking at it again, I have decided to change
> > _device_probe_type() to set PED_DEVICE_UNKNOWN rather than
> > PED_DEVICE_FILE for block devices that are not in one of the
> > existing major categories. This means the kernel gets notified
> > correctly of partition table changes.
>
> Ok, seems fair to me, but i will ask the patch author about this. Matt, do you
> have any comment on this ? It is about the :
>
> ## ubd.dpatch by Matt Zimmerman <address@hidden>
> ## DP: Recognize UML UBD devices.
> ## DP: Closes: #258188
>
> patch to parted.
>
> > I'm not sure how useful it is having a long list of PedDeviceType...
> > Are there any arguments in favour of PED_DEVICE_UBD? Remember,
> > libparted is supposed to be portable...
>
> Not that i know of, especially as they are not used anywhere in the rest of
> the code. But then i don't really understand that part of the code, nor what
> the devicetype is used for in the first place.
>
> > (Actually, it wasn't my idea in the first place. If it were me,
> > I would have left PedDeviceType out all together)
>
> Ah,
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>