Alok, I added TB and GB units and tested and updated the webrev. Thanks William Alok Aggarwal wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, William Schumann wrote: > >> Hey Alok, >> I have been reading the AI XML parsing code. Is there an easy way of >> launching the validator from a development system like indiana-build, >> or do I need to do this on a client? >> >> I read a comment somewhere about using the DC validator in the >> future. Anything new on this? >> >> I've been using the Jing validator (seems to work OK, uses Relax NG >> schema file, but doesn't know about .defval.xml, I think) and the >> xmloperator editor (supposed to validate against rng file, but buggy >> for me). >> >> Also, xmloperator prepended: >> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >> to ai_manifest.rng. It seems logical that we use UTF-8, since we're >> international, but perhaps our character set for the manifest still >> shouldn't take anything other than ASCII. What do you think? Probably >> not so important, eh? >> William >> >> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4460 >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~wmsch/bug-4460/ >> >> Added ability to specify partition size units of either sectors or >> megabytes. >> Created new Relax NG element: partition_size_units, defaulting to >> megabytes > > So, I think in general we should also allow > gigabytes and terabytes as the units since they're > quite valid. Does it make sense to get rid of > the sectors notation entirely? I mean do people > really prefer this over mb, gb or tb? > > I also think applying this extension to slices > at this time makes sense, it sounds kinda odd > that partition units can be specified but slice > units can't be. > > auto_install.c: line 310: I haven't looked at this > closely but don't you want something like MB_TO_BLOCKS here? > Or, is just a matter of naming the define that instead of > BLOCKS_TO_MB? You're right. There shouldn't be a constant here, but a formula. > > auto_parse.c: Why not just name the function > ai_get_manifest_partition_units() to match what the > rest of the code does? Yeah, it's since there is so much code duplication. I wrote a generic function that just took the element as a parameter. Is there a particular reason why you broke it up into so many different functions? If I can get you to see it my way, I'll make them all use the same function. If you win, I'll change the new function name as you want. :)
Thanks for this little pre-review. :) wm > > Alok > >
