Re: Parted 1.6.5-pre1

[Andrew Clausen]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:10:34PM +0530, Veerapuram Varadhan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> libparted 1.6.5.pre1 is so far so good for those RAID related changes. 
> However,  i have doubt related to the following code fragment of
> libparted/linux.c.
> 
> Suppose if my /proc/partition has entry like rd/c0d0, according to the
> above code, the pattern string pointed by the variable "pos" will be
> "/c0d0",

This is the intended behaviour.

> as strrchr returns pointer to the character that it matches in
> the string from reverse, which, i feel, may be logically wrong, though the
> code works/will work fine as it uses "isdigit" for the pattern matching.

Why is it logically wrong?

> How about adding that line marked by /*========> pos++; <==========*/?

Why?

> I need one more clarification.  In my /dev/rd directory, i found only 7
> device nodes for c0d0 starting from c0d0p1 to c0d0p7.  Why is it so?  Is
> it a kernel limitation?

Perhaps... I don't know.  What are the major/minor numbers?  (You
can get this with "ls -l").  You (or I) can check in
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/devices.txt how many partition numbers
are allocated.

> I created 8 partitions using parted.  Parted is able to show all the 8
> partitions including c0d0p8, but the entry corresponding to this partition
> was not found in the /proc/partitions.  Can anybody throw some light on
> this, as to how to solve this?

That sounds bad.  Linux has crazy minor number limitations.  It
has been the subject of many flamewars, and I think the plan is
to have it fixed...

Cheers,
Andrew