From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271415AbTG2PKV (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:10:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271695AbTG2PKV (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:10:21 -0400 Received: from mx.laposte.net ([213.30.181.11]:23451 "EHLO mx.laposte.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271415AbTG2PKR (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:10:17 -0400 Message-ID: <000d01c355e3$7f5dd9a0$0a00a8c0@toumi> From: "Ghozlane Toumi" To: "Andries Brouwer" Cc: References: <030201c3550f$dec61620$0a00a8c0@toumi> <041201c35551$8af611c0$0a00a8c0@toumi> <20030728230951.GC1845@win.tue.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sgi partitionning fix (Was: 2.6.0-test1 on alpha : disk label numbering trouble) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:00:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org You wrote : > On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:45:12PM +0200, Ghozlane Toumi wrote: > > > However, I found out that sgi partitionning had this "renumbering" > > issue even before viro's patch. > > I don't know if this is correct, in any case this is an untested patch > > that changes this behaviour for sgi partitions. > > patch is attached because of dumb mailer. > > -------------------- > > for(i = 0; i < 16; i++, p++) { > > blocks = be32_to_cpu(p->num_blocks); > > start = be32_to_cpu(p->first_block); > > if (blocks) > > - put_partition(state, slot++, start, blocks); > > + put_partition(state, i+1, start, blocks); > > } > > -------------------- > > Hmm. The previous change was not because there is something > intrinsically good with some way of numbering partitions, > but because it is very inconvenient when partition numbering > changes. Yes, you are right. It's just tht looking at similar paritionning code, like osf, sun, ultrix, I didn't see/know why sgi would be different. but I've never approached an sgi in my life and thus don't know anything about irix partitionnnig uses. > But here the 2.6 behaviour is already that of 2.4.21, and you > change away from that. Not a good idea. Agreed, obviously. ghoz