On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 09:33:48AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Robert Millan schrieb: > >The last one sounds like a bug. > > Yes, it's from the current *unpatched* grub-probe.
I mean that it should find the disk that contains /dev/hda1 device _node_. > >Which interface is easier to figure out > >for the user, one in which different actions require different parameters, > >or one where the same parameters act in completely different way depending > >on the file? > > There are no different actions! Whether you give a valid path or a block > device as an argument, the program behaves exactly the same. It does even > behave exactly as before (i.e. unpatched) if given a path. Accepting > devices as argument is simply an *added* feature. Consider the following: $ cat > /boot/grub/device.map << EOF (hd0) /dev/device1 (hd1) /dev/device2 EOF $ mount /dev/device1 /mnt $ touch /mnt/file $ grub-probe -t drive /mnt/file ??? $ ln -s nowhere /mnt/symlink $ grub-probe -t drive /mnt/symlink ??? $ mkfifo /mnt/fifo $ grub-probe -t drive /mnt/fifo ??? $ mknod /mnt/device2 $ grub-probe -t drive /mnt/device2 ??? Is the same output supposed to be printed in all "???" ? If not, what is in each one? -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
