Re: [Design] nested partitions: Unify grub_partition and grub_disk

[phcoder <phcoder@gmail.com>]

Ping. Is it ok for me to implement it this way?
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