From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268589AbTGOPiE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:38:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268602AbTGOPiE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:38:04 -0400 Received: from router.emperor-sw2.exsbs.net ([208.254.201.37]:45446 "EHLO sade.emperorlinux.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268589AbTGOPgv (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:36:51 -0400 From: Josh Litherland To: Kevin Corry Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Partitioned loop device.. In-Reply-To: <200307151001.44218.kevcorry@us.ibm.com> X-Newsgroups: mlist.linux-kernel User-Agent: tin/1.5.17-20030301 ("Bubbles") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.21-pre5-ac3 (i686)) Message-Id: <20030715155317.317B461FDE@sade.emperorlinux.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <200307151001.44218.kevcorry@us.ibm.com> you wrote: > so there's not much of a reason to add partitioning support to the loop > driver itself. Working with sector images of hard drives? I use Linux for data recovery jobs and it would be very helpful to me to be able to look at DOS partitions inside a loopback device. As it is I must chunk it up into seperate files by hand. -- Josh Litherland (josh@emperorlinux.com)