
|
[openbeosstorage]
||
[Date Prev]
[04-2003 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[04-2003 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[openbeosstorage] Re: Partitioning rethink
- From: "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 18:33:11 +0200 CEST
Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > > OpenTracker also displays volumes that aren't mountable.
> > > > > Perhaps
> > > > > we
> > > > > should just have a "mountable" flag=3D3D3D3D3F In any way, if
> > > > > there
> > > > > is no
> > > > > file
> > > > > system for this partition, it just can't be mountable :))
> > > > Is there a reason unmountable volumes are displayed=3D3D3F
> > >
> > > Just for the user, so that he knows "yes, it does recognize the
> > > partition (my precious data aren't lost), but it can't mount
> > > them,
> > > because the system might not know about the file system".
> > > Dunno if it really achieves this, since it could also mean "Yes,
> > > it
> > > sees the partition, but it can't mount it, because all of my
> > > precious
> > > data are lost" :-))
> > >
> > > If a reason could be added, that would probably be the best way:
> > > - "unsupported file system" if no file system could be found
> > > - "corrupted data" if the file system check returned
> > > B=3D3D5FBAD=3D3D5FDATA -
> > > that
> > > should be returned if the partition is recognized as fitting, but
> > > some
> > > of its parameters are not, i.e. the volume has all BFS magic
> > > values,
> > > but the block size does not match the real amount, or similar
> > > things.
> >
> > BPartition could be extended by a method Status(), which would
> > return
> > something like
> > B=3D5FPARTTITION=3D5F{PARTITIONED,MOUNTED,UNMOUNTED,CORRUPT,UNSUPPORTED
> > =3D5FDISK=3D5FSY
> > STEM}.
>
> I added:
>
> // partition statuses
> enum {
> B=5FPARTITION=5FVALID,
> B=5FPARTITION=5FCORRUPT,
> B=5FPARTITION=5FUNRECOGNIZED,
> }
>
> uint32 BPartition::Status() const;
>
> I didn't want to exclude the possibility of mountable partitioning
> systems, and
> it just didn't seem right including mounting info in the list (though
> I'm open
> to changing that if you really think it's a good idea). What'd'y'all
> think=3F
That's OK, too.
CU, Ingo
|

|