Re: Partitioning context
"Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.openbeos.storage |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <38949943117-BeMail@graete> |
"Axel D=F6rfler" <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote: > > "Axel D=3D3DF6rfler" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > - 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=3D > > 3D5FID]/ > > raw. > > The rest can work completely transparent for the disk=3D3D5Fdevice=3D3D > > 5Fmanager. > > Hm, that might be the way to go, and a similar way could probably > also > be used for TTYs. So what's needed would be the ability to trigger > the > creation (and deletion) of /dev entries and the ability of attaching > data to those entries (which file it refers to, for example). AFAICT > that matches Thomas' proposed changes to the device management pretty > well :-) Cool! :-)) > > So, probably an additional BPartition::IsLeaf() (better name=3D3D3F) > > 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. > > So that intel partitions in non-extended intel partitions would be > invalid=3D3F No. IsLeaf() would only indicate, that if you want to have child partitions for this partition you'd need to use nesting. Perfectly legal (though quite likely a problem for other OSs). > Do you think that this is a necessary restriction=3D3F As long as > we don't give the user the possibility to create those partitions > (too > easily), I don't see much of a problem. Me neither. :-) > The reader should support anything you throw at it, while the writer > should only output conformant layouts. Yep. > > BTW, DriveSetup users should be warned, when they are going to use > > nesting. > > Might be a good idea, although a visual clue might be enough (i.e. > partition type: primary/logical (for intel style partioning), along > with a graphical representation (generic)). In any case it doesn't harm to have a method to find out where the boundaries of a partitioning system are. > The only problem with nesting partitions is, AFAICT missing support > in > other operating systems. I guess so. > > > both would be very convenient mostly for users of emulators (such > > > as > > > Bochs or Amithlon, the former accesses files as hard drivers, the > > > latter has the standard amiga partitioning system inside an Intel > > > partition), but I could imagine other useful applications as > > > well. > > > What do you think=3D3D3D3F > > Definitely a good idea. > > Yep, it always annyoing not to be able to access those things > currently > :-) BTW, if you really want to access such a thing, you can adjust the virtualdrive driver (src/tests/kits/storage/virtualdrive). The should be very easy to do. CU, Ingo