From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1LtMiR-0000Ih-EG for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:00:52 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LtMiM-0000Hb-PW for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:00:48 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LtMiI-0000Fx-0P for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:00:46 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49667 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LtMiH-0000Fn-71 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:00:41 -0400 Received: from aybabtu.com ([69.60.117.155]:48684) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LtMiG-0008Pn-H7 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:00:40 -0400 Received: from [192.168.10.10] (helo=thorin) by aybabtu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LtMWp-0002Hd-2f; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:48:51 +0200 Received: from rmh by thorin with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LtMiD-0003Av-7T; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:00:37 +0200 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:00:37 +0200 From: Robert Millan To: The development of GRUB 2 Message-ID: <20090413140037.GD12170@thorin> References: <49B28BA6.3030109@gmail.com> <20090307153815.GA15220@thorin> <49B29AEE.4000409@gmail.com> <49E1126D.4050604@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49E1126D.4050604@gmail.com> Organization: free as in freedom X-Message-Flag: Worried about Outlook viruses? Switch to Thunderbird! www.mozilla.com/thunderbird X-Debbugs-No-Ack: true User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Cc: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Subject: Re: [Design] nested partitions: Unify grub_partition and grub_disk 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: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:00:49 -0000 On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:58:05PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > Ping. Is it ok for me to implement it this way? I'd really like it if Okuji could give his impression on this one, if possible. > phcoder wrote: >> I forgot to speak about another question: partition naming. I see 2 >> possibilities >> 1) purely numeric unified naming scheme. It means that >> (hd0,1,a) becomes (hd0,1,1) >> On one hand mixed number-letter scheme is similar to what freebsd uses >> but on the other hand numerical scheme is versatile and allows >> unlimited nestedness. And I don't see why we would use a scheme >> specific to one of many supported OSes. >> 2) Every partition map is allowed to pick the name that it likes as >> long as it contains no comma. In this way we would need to keep >> partition-name parsing functions in partitition map modules. It means >> that this code would be duplicated. But this scheme is better in the >> cases when partition map has no numbering scheme but instead has labels >> attached to partitions. But in this case IMO search command should be >> used find the partition >> >> I personally would prefer the first way >>> Also an interesting question is how would "has_partitions" field be >>> handled in this scheme. >> >> Just ignored. It's actually used only to optimise some code out based >> on the assumption that some media has no partitions. Performance gain >> is negligible but if this assumption doesn't hold true grub won't be >> able to access the partitions which are really here. Famous example is >> a cdrom. Most people would assume that cdrom has no partitions. But on >> powerpc bootable cdroms use APM >> >> >> > > > -- > > Regards > Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."