On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 23:12 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:11:50AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 15:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > There's no reason grub-probe should fail if it can't resolve drive, when > > > we > > > just asked for -t fs, -t fs_uuid or -t partmap. > > > > > > This patch solves the problem by spliting device/drive map[] entry > > > registration > > > into a separate function, and using that from grub-probe.c to register a > > > dummy > > > drive that will last during the current execution. > > > > Cannot hostfs be used by default for all userspace utilities? > > Part of what makes grub-probe interesting is that it shares a lot of code with > the freestanding GRUB you will run later, so when it is used during > grub-install & update-grub, it is very useful to catch possible problems. I > think hostfs would defeat that purpose.
Well, then we probably don't want to ignore any errors. When do you have the situation that the drive cannot be resolved? My concern is that introducing a dummy object for non-testing purposes could indicate bad code quality. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
