[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [parted-devel] [Parted-maintainers] Debian Bug #578097: No support f
Re: [parted-devel] [Parted-maintainers] Debian Bug #578097: No support for CMS-formatted disks
Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:26:00 +0200
[Cc'ing the list, in case others are interested. ]
Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:08:14 -0400 (EDT), Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Stephen Powell wrote:
> But the new patch does assume,
> just like the one above-mentioned one does, that the four context diffs
> mentioned in your previous e-mail are already applied.
> OK, here is the new patch:
I confirmed that it applies and doesn't cause any trouble on x86_64/linux.
I'll actually look at the code and make sure tests pass on an
s390x next week, assuming I can get access.
Speaking of tests, can you outline a couple
that will exercise some (more the merrier) of this new code?
> In order to make the DIAG driver work for FBA DASD with a block
> size greater than 512, I had to make a rather awkward patch to
> C function vtoc_read_volume_label in libparted/labels/vtoc.c.
> The "right" logic would be "If this is an FBA DASD device
> using the DIAG driver, and the effective block size used by the
> DIAG driver is greater than 512, then do it this way. Else,
> do it the normal way." (Note that when using the FBA driver,
> the effective block size is always 512, regardless of the CMS
> logical block size stored in the volume label. The DIAG driver,
> on the other hand, honors the CMS logical block size.)
> The problem is that the information needed to make that decision
> has not been provided to the routine (via the parameter list).
> So what I ended up doing is assuming the normal way, then if
> I don't find a recognized volume label header (VOL1, LNX1,
> or CMS1, in EBCDIC), then I assumed that it must be the special
> case. So in the special case I end up doing an unnecessary
> read. It's a kludge, but it works.
> Now about the NEWS article. How about something like this?
Great. I'll use it verbatim, with this tweak to the first sentence:
Improve support of DASD devices on the s390 architecture.
> o A number of improvements have been made to the support of DASD
> devices on the s390 architecture. parted now supports all
> DASD types (CKD and FBA), DASD formats (CDL, LDL, CMS
> non-reserved, and CMS reserved), and DASD drivers (ECKD, FBA,
> and DIAG) in all combinations supported by the Linux kernel.
> As before, only CDL format on CKD DASD using the ECKD driver
> is supported for read-write operations (create, delete,
> move, re-size, etc.). However, the implicit partition
> present on LDL- and CMS-formatted disks is now correctly
> recognized for read-only operations. In detail:
> - parted now correctly handles LDL-format disks with a block
> size other than 4096 (bug fix)
> - parted now recognizes the CMS disk format, both reserved
> and non-reserved (enhancement)
> - parted now supports FBA DASD devices (enhancement)
> - parted now supports the DIAG driver when running in a
> virtual machine under z/VM (enhancement)
- Re: [parted-devel] [Parted-maintainers] Debian Bug #578097: No support for CMS-formatted disks,
Jim Meyering <=