[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: sanity check

From: Don Mulvey
Subject: Re: sanity check
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:10:56 -0600

Hi Andrew,

>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.


Yup! 1.5.3

>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


reply via email to

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