From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 1AG4Vj-0006K0-00 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:46:23 -0800 Received: from blacksheep.csh.rit.edu ([129.21.60.6]) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AG4Vi-0005kQ-O7 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:46:22 -0800 Received: from dijkstra (dijkstra.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.152]) by blacksheep.csh.rit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24859333 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:46:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mdz by dijkstra with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AG4Vh-0006EP-00 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:46:21 -0500 From: Matt Zimmerman Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Partitioning scheme for ubd's Message-ID: <20031101224621.GP6350@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> References: <200311011159.11435.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311011159.11435.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:46:21 -0500 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:59:11AM +0100, BlaisorBlade wrote: > But there is a problem here: > 1) device names are not consistent: if you want to use ubd[a-z], decide so > and start the change(for 2.6 there's a lot more changes anyway, so it is a > good occasion...) Are you talking about /proc/partitions or something else? > 2) if I do an install, I can partition the ubd's; but then, I won't be > able to loop mount the file on the host(and if I'm in trouble, this > ability is worth a lot). In fact, I've never partitioned the ubd's, but > this meant a lot of trouble even to run Slackware install. Of course you can; use losetup -o (or mount -o loop,offset=). But I don't see what this has to do with partition support for ubd. You can use partitions or not, depending on what you prefer, just as with a real block device. > 3) so, I thought this: since partitioning schemes are pluggable, it would be > possible to fool it and turn the ubd's into partitions of a single disk. I.e. > if I setup udb0, ubd1 and so on, they would be seen as three partitions of a > single disk. But they are still different files, loop-mountable on host. > > Would you ever accept this? The other possible solution(which would be > cleaner) would be to teach, if possible, to the host kernel Device Manager to > read a file as a bunch of partition with its table(I've heard of DM about COW > files these days), and then to mount the partitions, but I don't know if it's > possible. I can't think of any instance where I'd want this mixed solution, instead of the existing options with partitions and multiple ubd devices. -- - mdz ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel