[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Remove has_paritions

From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove has_paritions
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:33:29 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:25:15PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> diff --git a/disk/lvm.c b/disk/lvm.c
> index 126b494..59bf2d7 100644
> --- a/disk/lvm.c
> +++ b/disk/lvm.c
> @@ -97,7 +97,6 @@ grub_lvm_open (const char *name, grub_disk_t disk)
>    if (! lv)
>      return grub_error (GRUB_ERR_UNKNOWN_DEVICE, "Unknown LVM device %s", 
> name);
> -  disk->has_partitions = 0;
>    disk->id = lv->number;
>    disk->data = lv;
>    disk->total_sectors = lv->size;

Why would LVM users want to nest partition maps in them?

This makes me think removing has_partitions is not such a good idea.

Actually, LVM is a partition map of sorts.  If we're going to refurbish our
partition handling model, I think we should contemplate the possibility of
LVM (and perhaps swRAID) becoming less ad-hoc.

But that is more an idea for 2.0.  What are our inmediate needs?

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]