[openbeosstorage] Re: Amiga RDB

"Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > Save one point maybe: The possibility to define reserved blocks at 
> > beginning and end of the partition doesn't fit that nicely into the 
> > latest draft version of the DiskDevice API (nor into any of the 
> > earlier 
> > versions ;-). In order to still being able consider a partition a 
> > contiguous space a disk system resides on, it would be necessary to 
> > report only the non-reserved blocks as the partition space. But 
> > this 
> > is 
> > not so nice for DriveSetup, since it won't be able to display the 
> > reserved parts and the user might get a wrong impression about to 
> > which 
> > point a partition can be moved/resized.
> > 
> > Since the BDiskSystem::Validate*() calls will be used to ensure, 
> > that 
> > the new partition position and size will be OK, this won't have any 
> > bad 
> > consequences (let alone the slightly incorrect visualization), 
> > though. 
> > I could live with that.
> 
> I would actually appreciate if DriveSetup (or the appropriate add-on) 
> could make the reserved space visible.

Grrr... ;-)

> If you remember, we want to have a similar problem (at least I do ;-
> )) 
> with our special partition used for RAID information etc. - something 
> like this could also be handled as reserved space.

That's something different I'd say. This special partition would simply 
be represented as, well, a special partition. In fact we may even want 
to allow moving and resizing for it.

> Anyway, for now, I don't think we have to deal with it - just report 
> the accessible partition size and we're happy.

I would actually rather like to do it right in the first place, i.e. 
let's either decide in favor one way or another, but not for 
preliminaries.

The question that comes to my mind is, what function has this reserved 
space sticked to a partition? I can't really think of anything that 
makes much sense. And if that's the case, then I'm tending to favor 
dealing with it in the stepmotherly way outlined earlier, instead of 
extending the API just to include a nice handling for that particular 
partitioning scheme.

I'm a bit uncertain, whether I start to dislike the BPartitionableSpace 
objects. In the case of this partitioning system they would certainly 
respect the reserved space attached to the partitions and thus make 
DriveSetup think, that the partitions can't be moved only a short 
distance, as that would invade non-partitionable space.

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: