[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sanity check
Re: sanity check
Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:10:56 -0600
>Your entire email came through as one paragraph... it would be easier
>if it was broken up a bit ;)
Sorry ... I dont have much control over it ... I just do the best I can.
>ala _arch_device_new() in libparted/device_linux.c?
>That should be your model ;)
Right ... However, there seem to be device routines in device_linuc.c that
I need to circumvent. So, I created a device type of evms (dev->type ==
PED_EVMS_DEVICE) and added it to device_linux.c. For example, you dont ever
do seek operations in evms. All i/o is LSN based and relative to the start
of the storage object.
>Huh? _arch_device_new() ped_malloc()'s it's own PedDevice... you
>should be doing the same thing, IMHO.
Ok, you mean to say ... malloc a PedDevice in evms and fill in geometry,
size and stuff?
> Currently, I am getting as far as read_table()
> ( in disk_dos.c ) but then failing on partition checks. I think it is
> to reported geometry and invalid partition allignment.
>Hmmm, does it usually complain? (i.e. if you use parted normally)
Everybody else (including parted) seem happy with the partition scheme.
That is why I believe I have the PedDevice info wrong or am missing some
info. I'll step through the code some more.
>YUCK! Yes, I think this is crazy...
Could you elaborate? The basic idea is to malloc a ped_device. Then, call
to get a new ped_disk which will cause libparted to probe the disk's
partitioning scheme, attaching a partition list to the ped_disk. Later,
ped_disk_xxx routines can be called to: add, delete, resize, commit
- sanity check, Don Mulvey, 2001/11/05
- Re: sanity check,
Don Mulvey <=