From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 1AH7tN-0007aM-00 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:35:09 -0800 Received: from smtp002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.33]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AH7tM-0008PY-Ce for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:35:08 -0800 From: BlaisorBlade Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Partitioning scheme for ubd's References: <200311041921.09084.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> <20031104195247.GW9377@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20031104195247.GW9377@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311042138.00969.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: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:38:00 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Alle 20:52, marted=EC 4 novembre 2003, Matt Zimmerman ha scritto: > The command line, I think, accepts both for backward compatibility. Backward compatibility is ok. If CLI accepts both, we are ok. Only docs don= 't=20 seem up-to-date. > The > device file names, of course, are a userland concern. Current versions of > makedev, at least in Debian, use the new scheme. > > > > > 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. > > > > Would instead this one(or another way to do this) be interesting? So th= at > > the kernel could guess by itself the offsets of partitions, rather than > > requiring the user do more passages(i.e. use fdisk to read partition > > table) to handle this. > > I suppose the solution to this would be partition support on loop devices. > Is this any easier in 2.6? I've not yet looked at the code, but anyway 2.6 is just cooler, and with=20 better Makefiles... so if I **ever** do this, I'll do it in 2.6. About 2.6, are you still interested in the mconsole_exec patch? I could por= t=20 it to 2.6, and in that case, probably I could even add the managing of=20 stdin/out/err to a console/serial line. in 2.4 exec_usermodehelper closes a= ll=20 open files(I didn't want to duplicate it, the patch was not meant as a toy)= ,=20 in 2.6 it's probably simpler. --=20 cat <