On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Per Andersson wrote: > I have been working on partman-ubi, which enables d-i to > partition MTD flash with UBI (Unsorted Block Images). > > UBI is sort of similar to LVM, in the sense that MTD devices > are attached to UBI. This creates a _UBI device_, on which it > is possible to create _UBI volumes_. These UBI volumes can > then be formatted at the users discretion (with ubifs for > instance). > > To examplify the procedure for working with UBI: > > 1) Attach a MTD to UBI (this creates an UBI device) > 2) Create volume on an UBI device with name and size. > > The issue I am now facing is that partman is tightly integrated > with libparted. Neither of MTD and UBI is understood by > libparted. > > Questions: > > Regarding the partitioning editor (partman) I wonder if the > attachment of MTD to UBI needs to be undoable (i.e. not > really performed until partitioning commit/finishing > partitioning).
Many of partman-lvm's operations currently aren't undoable; it commits at various points as it goes along, displaying a confirmation message warning you about the consequences. This is a hassle, but it works. It would be *better* for partman to predict partition names and sizes and operate accordingly, but I suspect you'll find that core support for that in partman isn't very good, so I think it would be OK for partman-ubi not to attempt this for now. > Since partman is tightly connected with libparted, what is the > best way to keep track of UBI devices and volumes? I.e. > a) should partman be made to understand MTD and UBI, or > b) is it better to keep all of this outside parted (and let the > shell scripts create device and id related directories and files), > or > c) should parted_server be altered to understand and handle > MTD and UBI? If in a) you meant "should parted be made ...", then I think that's clearly the best option. Trying to get partman to handle things that parted doesn't is problematic at various layers and best avoided. > When creating a loop label, it seems parted writes this to > the device. This is not really what I want. Connecting to the > questions above, is it possible to use the infrastructure given > by partman/parted_server but without any of it being written > to device. Not to my knowledge; you'd be best advised to arrange for libparted to be smart enough not to do this for UBI devices, I think. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
