[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PedUnit API commit and partition resizing (blending "Re: PedUnit API
From: |
Michael Reed |
Subject: |
Re: PedUnit API commit and partition resizing (blending "Re: PedUnit API commit" and "Re: partition resizing") |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:47:42 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041207) |
Andrew Clausen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:59:23PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
>>>(parted) unit B
>>>(parted) mkpart
>>>Partition type? [primary]?
>>>File system type? [ext2]?
>>>Start? 0
>>>End? -1
>>>Error: The location -1 is outside of the device /dev/sdx.
>>Does this only happen with gpt labels?
>
> Well, -1B is very strange. How should we deal with byte units that
> aren't sector aligned?
I think that partitioning in units smaller than a sector
doesn't really make sense. Otherwise, I think you should
round up/down to the nearest sector.
>
>>>Using units GB, mkpart works but wastes quite a bit
>>>of space at the end of the disk. Is this really the way you
>>>want it to work, leaving almost a GB of unused space at the end of
>>>the disk? I'd consider changing the semantics of "-1"
>>>to be "last available sector relative to the starting sector
>>>regardless of unit in effect". This means that if you're trying
>>>to fill a hole in the disk, all you have to do is get the starting
>>>location correct and -1 will find the end. Anyway, something to think
>>>about.
>>Special semantics for ``-1''?
>>This introduces an inconsistency. You can always use ``-1s''.
-1s doesn't adequately describe what I had in mind.
I'm really suggesting "-1" mean "all available freespace" rather
than "end of disk -1 unit".
Parted could suggest an appropriate ending value as defined above
then I could just hit "return".
>
> We could just make _grow_over_small_freespace() a more generous
> _grow_over_freespace(), constrained by our new "range" parameter.
I like this idea. I'd like the growth over small freespace to
reach the end of the disk. That's where the "all available
freespace" connotation for -1 would be handy.
(As you can tell, I'm more into the practical implications of
using parted than the elegance of the algorithm. :( )
>
>>>I'd still like to see resize of a partition with no filesystem.
>>>(Patch previously submitted to maintainer(s).)
>
> I'm not excited by the idea. Would letting the "check" command set the
> partition size to coincide with the detected filesystem's size suffice?
You missed the point. There is not a filesystem in the partition being
resized. I just want to resize the partition. What would "check" do
if there isn't a filesystem?
Thanks,
Mike
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-parted mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
>
>
- Re: PedUnit API commit, (continued)
- Re: PedUnit API commit, leslie . polzer, 2005/07/01
- Re: PedUnit API commit, Michael Reed, 2005/07/01
- Re: PedUnit API commit, leslie . polzer, 2005/07/02
- Re: PedUnit API commit, Michael Reed, 2005/07/06
- Re: PedUnit API commit, leslie . polzer, 2005/07/06
- Re: PedUnit API commit, Andrew Clausen, 2005/07/06
- Re: partition resizing (was: Re: PedUnit API commit), Szakacsits Szabolcs, 2005/07/07
- Re: partition resizing (was: Re: PedUnit API commit), Andrew Clausen, 2005/07/08
- Re: partition resizing (was: Re: PedUnit API commit), Szakacsits Szabolcs, 2005/07/08
- Re: partition resizing (was: Re: PedUnit API commit), Szakacsits Szabolcs, 2005/07/08
- Re: PedUnit API commit and partition resizing (blending "Re: PedUnit API commit" and "Re: partition resizing"),
Michael Reed <=