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 1AG1WL-00009E-00 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:34:49 -0800 Received: from smtp003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.34]) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AG1WL-0000fB-6u for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:34:49 -0800 From: BlaisorBlade MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311011159.11435.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Subject: [uml-devel] Partitioning scheme for ubd's 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 11:59:11 +0100 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Since some time, we can get nice messages as ubda: unknown partition table on boot if we use ubd's normally, and even install UML on partitions for installs. 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...) 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. 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. -- cat <