From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PiwkQ-0005jq-F3 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:24:54 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49908 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PiwkN-0005ji-2H for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:24:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PiwkL-0004XU-Ug for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:24:50 -0500 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:37857) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PiwkL-0004XL-QF for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:24:49 -0500 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so3953382wwb.30 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:24:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=Iij6GIxe3ITnDwO+kXKn0H+p9IFhrsE1EX8dBoEP0hE=; b=kfBVw1B18+Qi6K5OonYHaViovT5PV5IAcZLVj5Rz8F+/7xgW7cpL+HmdefJ3H5nJoA G5aeKdMyOAsYzINyNjbcd0xMEuapPMLuj5JDKtS8Mi6CHG5XrTdpwH2P3rVOvvrwacfz 8iVIDlgAFTVP7R9Qzpxu23zwNflI1dlExRXvw= 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:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=Zuy8x56/t7w7HODq+syjIkgRuMIjST4sgsotnMprEKaZ/gQlxMbAu5yZENkTt9Hd7d ly7+caw6diFwhTbnWPmVrI/OJlV6LGobvyvzgADJzr0dX29E2czl128/VP6A+qt8WUS/ qK1aJ22aXFDAnvAjqhS47jZJ+Oksl9cZha1a0= Received: by 10.227.133.16 with SMTP id d16mr3361675wbt.145.1296253489072; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian.x201.phnet (vpn-global-dhcp3-080.ethz.ch [129.132.210.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t5sm9310348wes.9.2011.01.28.14.24.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:24:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D43422B.60207@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 01:24:43 +0300 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101226 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grub-devel@gnu.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigE1B93E528E4A416FBF5BF3A5" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 74.125.82.49 Subject: Re: Suggestion from a noob X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:24:53 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE1B93E528E4A416FBF5BF3A5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/28/2011 06:33 PM, hansbkk@gmail.com wrote: > But what scheme to use for the labels? My > answer - GRUB2's order, because it's relatively stable (BIOS order, > right?) It's nothing but. It depends on the factors like booted disk, enumeration order, disk latency and connected devices. It's also different from one mobo to another. It's probably by luck that it looked like relatively stable for you. Although one objective reason why it could seem stable is because you probably upgrade you BIOS less than Linu= x. There are orders of technical origin based on e.g. disk model and serial number, which might be more readable for you. But the target usercase is that user assigns the names based on the description of the contents that makes sense to him. > So here's my suggestion - please allow users to actually SET the > labels right from the grub CLI! I realize the different filesystems hav= e different label structures, > but if you were able to handle say dos/ntfs plus the top four Linux > filesystems that should cover 99% of the needs out there. > > =20 Writing to a filesystem is always a potential risk. It has to be carefully evaluated to find out if it's justified. For some filesystems it's as easy as writing to a superblock, on the others it's more tricky because it has mirrored superblocks or handles label somewhere in the fs. Also if we write anything to fs metadata we have to carefully check the compatibility to avoid potentially corrupting the fs. It adds some new points of failure and complexity. Also including just one fs with such support creates an incencitive to make other fses do the same even if it's potentially risky. Filesystems modules are also size-critical so any write support was intentionally omitted to keep the complexity and risks down. So a priori I'd say it's a no. You can bring new arguments to persuade me though. > Just an idea, if it's a stupid one, please let me know why - and if > you've got a better suggestion than the above kludge for figuring out > which disk is which please fill me in!=20 > =20 Just name the disks after whatever makes sense t you, not whatever makes sense to GRUB, it's your disks after all. --=20 Regards Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko --------------enigE1B93E528E4A416FBF5BF3A5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREKAAYFAk1DQisACgkQNak7dOguQgmJnQD9Gy/84NobYkAlQRcyPLJRmexu +qOcaKmYZBoel2gOBSABAKLwC890o4mhD2rfix7zeRxnReHz7x7/dVDh8n3nRv9d =FrpS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE1B93E528E4A416FBF5BF3A5--