From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1KE4nq-0006sR-T9 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:03:30 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KE4nn-0006r5-VR for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:03:28 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KE4nl-0006pq-Hy for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:03:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57415 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KE4nl-0006pi-BV for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:03:25 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:52154) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KE4nj-0001Fm-88 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:03:24 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO relay.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.81]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 02 Jul 2008 12:03:21 -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 1FE7A618F22 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:03:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <20080702142245.GA21064@thorin> References: <20080629211957.GD24784@thorin> <1214794971.9353.32.camel@localhost> <4868C017.8040004@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> <1214827937.9353.43.camel@localhost> <20080701160827.GF6985@thorin> <1214929545.13432.19.camel@dv> <1214937759.9353.64.camel@localhost> <20080701204816.GA31206@thorin> <1214954927.9353.91.camel@localhost> <20080702142245.GA21064@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:03:20 -0400 Message-Id: <1215014600.32058.6.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 (2.22.2-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2 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: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:03:28 -0000 On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:22 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > I don't think this is necessary. First, let's take for granted that our code > is in every situation smart enough not to crash when a filesystem isn't > readable (this should always be the case, since we might occasionaly be asked > to read corrupt filesystems). Good point. > If a flag means "access to the filesystem isn't deterministic, and grub-probe > might be able to do things that real GRUB won't", then we're in a situation in > which we'd like grub-probe to be conservative _but_ real GRUB to be > best-effort. I think this means an internal switch to tell fs probes whether > to be conservative or not. We could even use #ifdef GRUB_UTIL so the flag > checking stuff doesn't make real GRUB fatter. Another good point. We should not let users install GRUB on a filesystem that may eventually become inaccessible. Still, we probably want grub-fstest and grub-emu to be best effort to be able to debug compatibility problems. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin