On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 03:23:16PM +0000, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > Petr Uzel wrote: > > But isn't BKLPG interface superior to BLKRRPART in the fact that the > > kernel doesn't need to have support for particular type of disk label > > compiled in? If this is true, then it might be worth trying to extend > > BLKPG interface to support this kind of overlapping partitions instead > > of reverting back to BLKRRPART. What do you think? > > To come back to this specific point: I considered this some time ago > but didn't follow up on it as it seemed there were some difficult > problems. > > We could just relax all the constraints on BLKPG and let userspace do > whatever it wants, but that seems like it creates potential for a > misbehaving userspace tool to cause serious chaos. > > An alternative is to extend the interface to allow extra annotation > (e.g. to some how express that two partitions have a relationship such > as exists with DOS MBRs and extended/logical partitions).
Something similar came to my mind - extend the interface with some flag saying "this is an extended partition and if that overlaps with something behind it, it is OK". Shouldn't be difficult. -- Best regards / s pozdravem Petr Uzel, Packages maintainer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: [email protected] Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 964 190 00 Prague 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
