Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:04:45 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: Well, there goes Windows! Message-ID: <CAGH67wT4KtRsWrw1n08X9NS8LxCeRjNzwPUZ=f%2BsyN2321LJgA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E519C13.4060700@freebsd.org> References: <CAGH67wRFP9nFQLr0Gh-h4rKWrndZSy=6Q%2BKLC_U5Fg4RD%2BJMCw@mail.gmail.com> <4E4DB9A7.4040404@freebsd.org> <CAGH67wQoXOju3=OTh%2B6JoKLxkp7Vzqu8vg%2BO9X=DPXB5EkBJtQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E517978.2020705@freebsd.org> <64622705-80AB-4FEF-91E9-8F3041818B4E@xcllnt.net> <4E519C13.4060700@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 08/21/11 18:11, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >>> >>> gpart does not support (well, anyway) changing the underlying partition >>> table format without committing changes. Replacing the partition scheme= , >>> which this does, is such an operation. >> >> Weird. I could always destroy tables, create new ones using a >> different scheme and populate it with partitions without there >> being a single write to disk. The commit/undo logic worked >> just as well for those operations as the simpler ones. Did that >> get broken or are you just mistaken? >> > > No, it's stupider than that. When you destroy a gpart without committing, > the GEOM itself lingers as a (none)-type partitioning. This of course mak= es > sense, since that ghost geom is what is maintaining all the state, but > sometimes causes problems. For instance, it breaks some of =A0my lazy cod= e > that identifies non-partitioned disks by seeing if there is a GEOM there. > But, while slightly more complicated to detect, this would not be too > difficult to fix. > > The larger problem is that this behavior means that destroying gparts > sometimes doesn't work at all. For instance, if you have nested partition= ing > like MBR+BSD (or EBR) it is not possible to destroy the underlying MBR ge= om > without committing the destruction of the BSD geom. This is because the M= BR > geom cannot be destroyed, even without committing, while it continues to > have children, which it does due to the ghost geom for the BSD slice. > > The regular partitioning editor only commits early in this particular cas= e, > and asks about each subpartition tree separately with a big scary dialog > box. In the spirit of the autopartitioner, it makes one large scary dialo= g, > and always runs in early commit mode instead of potentially showing many > scary dialogs about partitions the user doesn't necessarily even know abo= ut. > This behavior could be changed, but I think is the most friendly for the > case in question: namely, "I want to blow away everything and let the > installer handle all partitioning details by itself". I think that adding more bold text would better underline the fact that you _are_ in fact going to blow away your partition tables.. Thanks, -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wT4KtRsWrw1n08X9NS8LxCeRjNzwPUZ=f%2BsyN2321LJgA>