[openbeosstorage] Re: Partitioning context
- From: Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:20:31 -0700
On 2003-04-06 at 11:28:57 [-0700], Ingo Weinhold wrote:
>
> "Axel D=F6rfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I've just two more (related) points to consider:
> >
> > - we should probably add an option to recognize files as a hard disk
> > and be able to scan the partitions contained therein
>
> I already thought about that some months ago, when we were designing
> the previous API. The issue I see is, where the devices are published.
> I would imagine it to work like this: There are syscalls to
> (un)register a file as virtual disk. On registration a device is
> published under
> /dev/disk/virtual/file/<filename>[uniqueness=5FID]/raw.
> The rest can work completely transparent for the
> disk=5Fdevice=5Fmanager.
>
> > - it would be nice if we would recognize if one partitioning system
> > is
> > used inside of another
>
> As I understand it, that is already built into the DiskDevice 2.x API.
> I'm actually afraid, the current version handles this too
> transparently, since, unless I missed something, there is no way to
> find out, if you have indeed nesting partitioning systems or just a
> single partitioning system supporting hierarchies. E.g. in the intel
> case:
>
> -----------------------------------------
> | device |
> |---------------------------------------|
> | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
> |---------|-----------------------------|
> | 5 | 6 | | 7 | 8 |
>
> 1 being an extended partition, 4 and 5 contained logical and 2-4, 7,
> and 8 primary ones, the BDiskSystem for device and partitions 1 and 4
> are the same (intel), although 1 and 4 are quite different beasts
> (extended vs. true nesting). (That reminds me, that a
> BPartition::DiskSystem() or better GetDiskSystem() is missing.)
Not quite, I think it would be:
device = (devicetype, intel)
1 = intel extended
2 = filesystem
3 = filesystem
4 = intel
5 = filesystem
6 = filesystem
7 = filesystem
8 = filesystem
Or, using your Type() and ContentType() idea, you'd have:
device = (devicetype -> intel map)
1 = (intel extended partition -> intel extended map)
2 = (intel primary partition -> filesystem)
3 = (intel primary partition -> filesystem)
4 = (intel primary partition -> intel map)
5 = (intel logical partition -> filesystem)
6 = (intel logical partition -> filesystem)
7 = (intel primary partition -> filesystem)
8 = (intel primary partition -> filesystem)
Still, I agree it's difficult to discern by type code alone where
nesting actually occurs.
> So, probably an additional BPartition::IsLeaf() (better name=3F)
> would be
> a good idea. It would indicate whether the partition is of a type that
> doesn't allow to create child partitions using the parent's system in
> a
> non-nesting manner.
For some reason I can't seem to place that isn't sitting right with me.
How about something more like
BDiskSystem::SupportsPartitioningSystemNatively(BPartition*, const char
*system)?
So an intel partition would return true for "intel extended map", but
false for "intel map". I guess filesystems could trigger a return value
of true.
> BTW, DriveSetup users should be warned, when they are going to use
> nesting.
Yes. I have no problem allowing it, but they need to know it might not
work with other OSes (and who knows, maybe it will work, though I kind
of doubt it... :-)
-Tyler
Other related posts:
