On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:52:16PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:34:44 +0100 > Daniel Kiper <dki...@net-space.pl> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:57:11PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote: > > > If there is a loopback device with the same name as the one to be > > > created, instead of closing the old one and replacing it with the > > > new one, return an error instead. If the loopback device was > > > created, its probably being used by something and just replacing it > > > may cause grub to crash unexpectedly. This fixes obvious problems > > > like `loopback d (d)/somefile'. Its not too onerous to force the > > > user to delete the loopback first with the `-d' switch. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Glenn Washburn <developm...@efficientek.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> > > > > Daniel > > > > PS May I ask you to create new thread for new version of the patches > > instead of attaching them to previous threads? > > These two patches were not meant to be a thread together, ie separate > patches, which was why I was treating them separately. I can see how > that might be confusing now.
I was also referring to the LUKS2 patches, sorry if I was not precise, which are always connected to the first thread created. This is confusing too. Could you create separate thread for each version of patchset in the future? Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
