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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:41 EST