Re: Ok to commit ubd patch ?

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 06:42:45PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 06:02:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 05:52:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:43:25AM +1100, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> > > > However, looking at it again, I have decided to change
> > > > _device_probe_type() to set PED_DEVICE_UNKNOWN rather than
> > > > PED_DEVICE_FILE for block devices that are not in one of the
> > > > existing major categories.  This means the kernel gets notified
> > > > correctly of partition table changes.
> > > 
> > > Ok, seems fair to me, but i will ask the patch author about this. Matt, 
> > > do you
> > > have any comment on this ? It is about the :
> > > 
> > > ## ubd.dpatch by Matt Zimmerman <address@hidden>
> > > ## DP: Recognize UML UBD devices.
> > > ## DP: Closes: #258188
> > > 
> > > patch to parted.
> 
> This was the simplest way to make parted usable on UBD devices without
> changing other behaviour.  If PED_DEVICE_UNKNOWN allows the same
> functionality as PED_DEVICE_UBD, then it's fine with me.

Could you eventually test it ? I believe that the &.6.21 package now in
unstable has the UBD patch disabled and this new stuff. I have no idea what a
UBD device is, and what it is for, so testing is difficult for me.

Friendly,

Sven Luther