Re: Ok to commit ubd patch ?

[Sven Luther]

Huh, forgot to CC Matt, done now.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 05:52:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:43:25AM +1100, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:31:03PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > It doesn't seems to be part of 1.6.20 though, an oversight ? 
> > 
> > It was an oversight.
> 
> Ok. I had a look yesterday, and this patch is somehow dependent on the s390
> patch, which includes the DASD type. I suppose your discussion below would
> also concern this one ? I remember you telling me that the s390 author should
> do the necessary FSF paperwork to get his stuff included.
> 
> > However, looking at it again, I have decided to change
> > _device_probe_type() to set PED_DEVICE_UNKNOWN rather than
> > PED_DEVICE_FILE for block devices that are not in one of the
> > existing major categories.  This means the kernel gets notified
> > correctly of partition table changes.
> 
> Ok, seems fair to me, but i will ask the patch author about this. Matt, do you
> have any comment on this ? It is about the :
> 
> ## ubd.dpatch by Matt Zimmerman <address@hidden>
> ## DP: Recognize UML UBD devices.
> ## DP: Closes: #258188
> 
> patch to parted.
> 
> > I'm not sure how useful it is having a long list of PedDeviceType...
> > Are there any arguments in favour of PED_DEVICE_UBD?  Remember,
> > libparted is supposed to be portable...
> 
> Not that i know of, especially as they are not used anywhere in the rest of
> the code. But then i don't really understand that part of the code, nor what
> the devicetype is used for in the first place.
> 
> > (Actually, it wasn't my idea in the first place.  If it were me,
> > I would have left PedDeviceType out all together)
> 
> Ah,
> 
> Friendly,
> 
> Sven Luther
>