Andries Brouwer writes:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > > (2) what about bootstrapping? how do you find the root device?
> > > Do you do "root=/dev/hda/offset=63,limit=1235823"? Bit nasty.
> >
> > Ben's patch makes initrd mandatory.
>
> Can this be fixed? I've *never* had t
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 08:05:02PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > initrd is an unnecessary pain in the ass for most people.
> > > It had better not become mandatory.
> >
> > You would not notice the difference, only your kernel would be
> > a bit smaller and the RRPA
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat May 19 20:07:23 2001
> > initrd is an unnecessary pain in the ass for most people.
> > It had better not become mandatory.
>
> You would not notice the difference, only your kernel would be
> a bit smaller and the RRPART ioctl disappears.
W
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 08:05:02PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > initrd is an unnecessary pain in the ass for most people.
> > It had better not become mandatory.
>
> You would not notice the difference, only your kernel would be
> a bit smaller and the RRPART ioctl disappears.
Would I not
> initrd is an unnecessary pain in the ass for most people.
> It had better not become mandatory.
You would not notice the difference, only your kernel would be
a bit smaller and the RRPART ioctl disappears.
[Besides: we have lived with DOS-type partition tables for ten years,
but they will not
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 01:30:14PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't think so. It is necessary, and it is good.
>
> But it is easy to make the transition painless.
> Instead of the current choice between INITRD (yes/no)
> we have INITRD (default built-in / external).
> The built-in versio
Andrew Morton writes:
> > (2) what about bootstrapping? how do you find the root device?
> > Do you do "root=/dev/hda/offset=63,limit=1235823"? Bit nasty.
>
> Ben's patch makes initrd mandatory.
Can this be fixed? I've *never* had to futz with initrd.
Probably most sy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wrote:
>The only problem I can see with this is that it removes one useful thing,
>the ability to give a user access to a whole partition.
>
>chown wingel /dev/hda5
>
>won't work anymore since there is no such device node.
Apologies, this should have gone to
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>3. Userspace partition code proposal
>
> Given the above two bits, here's a brief explaination of a
> proposal to move management of the partitioning scheme into
> userspace, along with portions of raid startup, lvm, uuid and
> mo
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > (2) what about bootstrapping? how do you find the root device?
> > Do you do "root=/dev/hda/offset=63,limit=1235823"? Bit nasty.
>
> Ben's patch makes initrd mandatory.
>
Can this be fixed? I've *never* had to futz with initrd.
Probably most systems are the same.
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > > (2) what about bootstrapping? how do you find the root device?
> > > Do you do "root=/dev/hda/offset=63,limit=1235823"? Bit nasty.
> >
> > Ben's patch makes initrd mandatory.
> >
>
> Can this be fixed? I've *neve
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 19 May 2001, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> >
> > > It's not done yet, but similar techniques would be applied. I envision
> > > that a raid device would support operations such as
> > > open("/dev/md0/sl
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 May 2001, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> >
> > > (1) these issues are independent. The partition parsing could
> > > be done in user space, today, by blkpg, if I read the code correctly
> > > ;-) (there's an ioctl for
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Ben LaHaise wrote:
>
> > It's not done yet, but similar techniques would be applied. I envision
> > that a raid device would support operations such as
> > open("/dev/md0/slot=5,hot-add=/dev/sda")
>
> Think for a moment and you'll
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Ben LaHaise wrote:
> It's not done yet, but similar techniques would be applied. I envision
> that a raid device would support operations such as
> open("/dev/md0/slot=5,hot-add=/dev/sda")
Think for a moment and you'll see why it's not only ugly as hell, but simply
won't
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> (1) these issues are independent. The partition parsing could
> be done in user space, today, by blkpg, if I read the code correctly
> ;-) (there's an ioctl for [un]registering partitions) Never
> tried it though ;-)
I tried to imply that through t
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> (1) these issues are independent. The partition parsing could
> be done in user space, today, by blkpg, if I read the code correctly
> ;-) (there's an ioctl for [un]registering partitions) Never
> tried it though ;-)
ioctls are even more evil tha
Hey folks,
The work-in-progress patch for-demonstration-purposes-only below consists
of 3 major components, and is meant to start discussion about the future
direction of device naming and its interaction block layer. The main
motivations here are the wasting of minor numbers for partitions, and
18 matches
Mail list logo
