From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1K3ebl-0005cm-3C for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:03:57 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3ebj-0005c0-Lu for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:03:55 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3ebi-0005bV-2k for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:03:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57400 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3ebh-0005bS-Vv for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:03:54 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:29542) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3ebh-0000PN-Jh for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:03:53 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO relay.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.81]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2008 18:03:52 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by relay.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22CDF619058 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:03:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <20080603211257.GB10712@thorin> References: <20080602135014.GA4563@thorin> <1212415910.3659.0.camel@rd> <20080603211257.GB10712@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:03:51 -0400 Message-Id: <1212530631.11375.4.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 (2.22.1-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH] register dummy drive X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:03:55 -0000 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