[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Parted 1.6.5-pre1
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: Parted 1.6.5-pre1 |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Jan 2003 07:50:25 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:10:34PM +0530, Veerapuram Varadhan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> libparted 1.6.5.pre1 is so far so good for those RAID related changes.
> However, i have doubt related to the following code fragment of
> libparted/linux.c.
>
> Suppose if my /proc/partition has entry like rd/c0d0, according to the
> above code, the pattern string pointed by the variable "pos" will be
> "/c0d0",
This is the intended behaviour.
> as strrchr returns pointer to the character that it matches in
> the string from reverse, which, i feel, may be logically wrong, though the
> code works/will work fine as it uses "isdigit" for the pattern matching.
Why is it logically wrong?
> How about adding that line marked by /*========> pos++; <==========*/?
Why?
> I need one more clarification. In my /dev/rd directory, i found only 7
> device nodes for c0d0 starting from c0d0p1 to c0d0p7. Why is it so? Is
> it a kernel limitation?
Perhaps... I don't know. What are the major/minor numbers? (You
can get this with "ls -l"). You (or I) can check in
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/devices.txt how many partition numbers
are allocated.
> I created 8 partitions using parted. Parted is able to show all the 8
> partitions including c0d0p8, but the entry corresponding to this partition
> was not found in the /proc/partitions. Can anybody throw some light on
> this, as to how to solve this?
That sounds bad. Linux has crazy minor number limitations. It
has been the subject of many flamewars, and I think the plan is
to have it fixed...
Cheers,
Andrew