devfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Removeable Media, partitions and devfs?

To: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Removeable Media, partitions and devfs?
From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 20:03:57 -0700
Cc: "Paul Bristow" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Andrej.Borsenkow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <mfedyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <010b01c17f4f$87b478a0$c8aaa8c0@kevin>
References: <3C0C9AC5.4080504@paulbristow.net> <001801c17d15$758b6760$c8aaa8c0@kevin> <3C0D588F.9000806@paulbristow.net> <03be01c17d20$5d1b72f0$c8aaa8c0@kevin> <200112050639.fB56d0a05344@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> <00e901c17dd2$8ccffe50$c8aaa8c0@kevin> <200112060633.fB66XoZ22006@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> <3C0FED36.9050506@paulbristow.net> <010b01c17f4f$87b478a0$c8aaa8c0@kevin>
Sender: owner-devfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin P. Fleming writes:
> > > So, let me get this right (I haven't looked closely at ide-floppy, so
> > > bear with me): when there is no media present, the driver sets the
> > > size to zero at revalidate time, even if previously the size was
> > > non-zero?
> >
> >
> > At the moment no.  But it could :-)
> 
> Are you sure that's a reasonable thing to do? It seems that the size
> variable should accurately reflect the size of the device at that
> moment, and if it doesn't who's to say that won't cause other side
> effects in the grok_partitions and related code in the future? Seems
> a bit risky to me, "overloading" this variable to make sure that the
> devfs code works in the way we all want it to.

Actually, that variable was already overloaded to stop
grok_partitions() from reading a partition table.

                                Regards,

                                        Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Current:   rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>