On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:25:15PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > diff --git a/disk/lvm.c b/disk/lvm.c > index 126b494..59bf2d7 100644 > --- a/disk/lvm.c > +++ b/disk/lvm.c > @@ -97,7 +97,6 @@ grub_lvm_open (const char *name, grub_disk_t disk) > if (! lv) > return grub_error (GRUB_ERR_UNKNOWN_DEVICE, "Unknown LVM device %s", > name); > > - disk->has_partitions = 0; > disk->id = lv->number; > disk->data = lv; > disk->total_sectors = lv->size;
Why would LVM users want to nest partition maps in them? This makes me think removing has_partitions is not such a good idea. Actually, LVM is a partition map of sorts. If we're going to refurbish our partition handling model, I think we should contemplate the possibility of LVM (and perhaps swRAID) becoming less ad-hoc. But that is more an idea for 2.0. What are our inmediate needs? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
