From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1LslDD-0000DC-VL for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:58:08 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LslDC-0000D7-1p for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:58:06 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LslDA-0000C4-FC for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:58:04 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59920 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LslDA-0000C0-9o for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:58:04 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:35035) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LslD9-0002uM-J2 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:58:03 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so189243fgb.7 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D0+01I7WteOuFdfR3rCpnlF0//w4QLcoGqtUiFEWe4I=; b=r0/AH8gtA3j0H0tJN3jpekvmexgYK4x0ax+Y1Lwro0qbiN/4qwgvRiQ4S205wSi21y e0undykm0B1zPsIaoNBl91tu0eKjEtfiO/28HKj30WXpY8TuRs1r5zcscB10sCeOOV60 JJTzqzwLBfGH5Tw6YMhjsjDSbtR7DKbi0PnKk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Mdd6vl7M8KXBtdV0XwPH+PhyjPwTQxluLb1O6hzLoDTz291XqEh+t5BKmG91UjOyiO 75I/VIHMe+PH5apA/XTN5iAQTZVEykthgF/DdZRGW3PUO0jcNVLEnvpak/zVJFVi4ZKK GrsaMuSmI+tp46bRoOZiSz18A2XJ2qH0991YU= Received: by 10.86.96.18 with SMTP id t18mr3624680fgb.25.1239487081549; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.25? (122-34.1-85.cust.bluewin.ch [85.1.34.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm4653089fge.8.2009.04.11.14.58.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49E1126D.4050604@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:58:05 +0200 From: phcoder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <49B28BA6.3030109@gmail.com> <20090307153815.GA15220@thorin> <49B29AEE.4000409@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49B29AEE.4000409@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:58:06 -0000 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