Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:09:51 +0200
From: Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>
To: "Ghozlane Toumi" <gtoumi@laposte.net>
Cc: <Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sgi partitionning fix (Was: 2.6.0-test1 on alpha : disk label numbering trouble)
Message-ID: <20030728230951.GC1845@win.tue.nl>
References: <UTC200307281315.h6SDFOY08368.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl> <030201c3550f$dec61620$0a00a8c0@toumi> <041201c35551$8af611c0$0a00a8c0@toumi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <041201c35551$8af611c0$0a00a8c0@toumi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1323
Lines: 34

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.

Thus, the previous patch made OSF in 2.6 do as it did in 2.4.

But here the 2.6 behaviour is already that of 2.4.21, and you
change away from that. Not a good idea.

Andries

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/