[openbeosstorage] Re: DiskDevice API v2.1

Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 2003-04-03 at 22:32:36 [-0800], Ingo Weinhold wrote:
[...]
> > > > > If
> > > > > that
> > > > > would require absolute blocks, we should go back to the 
> > > > > drawing
> > > > > board
> > > > > :)
> > > > 
> > > > If UDF does, I would vote for omitting support for it out of
> > > > principle
> > > > (if necessary, locking Tyler into some basement without 
> > > > computers).
> > > > ;-)
> > > 
> > > :-P That's a really bad idea all around. :-)
> > > 
> > > Seriously, with no UDF support, you have no DVD support. And 
> > > iso9660
> > > is
> > > no better, and we sure aren't dropping CD support. How about
> > > BDiskSystem::UsesAbsoluteAddressing()=3D3F
> > 
> > Won't be needed, I think. BDiskSystem::SupportsMoving() could also 
> > be
> > used for FSs.
> 
> I was thinking it would be needed to support a generic moving system 
> for relatively addressed systems while still allowing each system to 
> provide its own moving implementation.

BDiskSystem::SupportsMoving() would return whether moving for the 
partition is supported, regardless of whether it uses absolute or 
relative addressing. The negotiation of the algorithm to be used would 
be left to the disk=5Fdevice=5Fmanager and the partition module/FS add-on 
in question. I don't think the userland needs to know about the 
internals.

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: