[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: statuscheck patch..
From: |
B.Hakvoort |
Subject: |
Re: statuscheck patch.. |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:26:48 +0200 |
Hey Andrew,
So you're proposing to do it the other way around? Instead of getting a
path and look for it in /proc/mounts, you take paths from /proc/mounts,
get their major/minor and compare this to the major/minor from the
selected partition.
This sounds nice! very efficient, but wouldn't we be getting problems
with some strange entrys like your /dev2/root2 or rootfs ?
rootdevice again :)
Of course we could always check the rootdevice indepedently from the
other partitions.
Please, let me know if this is what you had in mind!
Bart
On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 12:55, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> Hi Bart,
>
> On my machine, /proc/partitions and /proc/mounts don't match.
>
> Wouldn't a better approach be compare major/minors rather than path
> names? i.e. to test if a mount entry in /proc/mounts matches a
> particular partition, compare the major/minors. i.e. 0 string
> comparisons. (I thought this is what I said before - sorry I didn't
> explain myself well)
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
--
www.titanium-it.nl --- Open Minded Open Source
www.real-life.nl <-----Another Source
- statuscheck patch.., B.Hakvoort, 2004/08/16
- Re: statuscheck patch.., Andrew Clausen, 2004/08/17
- Re: statuscheck patch..,
B.Hakvoort <=
- Re: statuscheck patch.., Andrew Clausen, 2004/08/17
- Re: statuscheck patch.., B.Hakvoort, 2004/08/17
- Re: statuscheck patch.., B.Hakvoort, 2004/08/17
- Re: statuscheck patch.., Tal Danzig, 2004/08/18
- Re: statuscheck patch.., B.Hakvoort, 2004/08/18