> Of course that would be better. The only complaint I have with such a
> system is that of backwards compatibility...as long as the legacy device
> names are still supported i would have no problem with it at all.
>
> however, this brings up an interesting question: what happens if two disks
> (presumably from two different machines) have the same disk label? what
> happens then? for instance, i have several linux machines both at my
> workplace and my home. if for some reason one of these machines dies due
> to hardware failure and i want to get stuff off the drives, i put the disk
> containing the /home partition on the failed machine into a working
> machine and reboot. What /home gets mounted then? the original /home or
> the new one from the dead machine? (and don't say end users wouldn't
> possibly do that... if they are adding hardware into their systems this is
> by no means beyond their capabilities)
>
> at least with physical device nodes i can say 'computer, you will mount
> this partition on this mountpoint!' and be done with it.
[Venkatesh Ramamurthy] You are getting my point exactly. This was
my argument from the first, we should have a efficient mechanism to mount
partitions
> so tell me then, how would one discern between two partitions with the
> same label?
[Venkatesh Ramamurthy] If the OS detects two partitions of the same
name , either dont mount both , but display an error (or) mount the first
one it finds ( this is not a good idea but)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
