On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:55:35 +0200
Jean-Yves Migeon jeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
do you expect the checks to be performed in
userland, so anyone can be free to have overlaps/overflows, or let
the kernel do the checks and return errors using the size obtained
through disk(9)?
The kernel
Le 30/04/12 19:29, Mouse a écrit :
do you expect the checks to be performed in userland, so anyone can
be free to have overlaps/overflows, or let the kernel do the checks
and return errors using the size obtained through disk(9)?
Overflowing is clearly bogus IMHO, and should not be allowed.
Le 27/04/12 18:43, Matthias Drochner a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:02:46 +0200
Jean-Yves Migeonjeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
Why push it to struct disk rather than letting backends handle it?
As the code looks now, the functions which scan disklabels
(sys/dev/dkwedge/dkwedge_*.c) get a
Design question: do you expect the checks to be performed in
userland, so anyone can be free to have overlaps/overflows, or let
the kernel do the checks and return errors using the size obtained
through disk(9)?
Speaking as someone who occasionally causes overlaps and such
deliberately: I
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:02:46 +0200
Jean-Yves Migeon jeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
Why push it to struct disk rather than letting backends handle it?
As the code looks now, the functions which scan disklabels
(sys/dev/dkwedge/dkwedge_*.c) get a struct disk *. To get
the actual size, it would
Le 26/04/12 22:39, Matthias Drochner a écrit :
I think it would be useful to add the total disk size to the common
struct disk. It could be used in wedge discovery to reject
partitions which don't fit into the usable disk space.
The reason I'm proposing this is that I just had a case where
