On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:16:05 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedeki...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 09:06 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: > > root 100m@0 > > kernel 100m@100m > > rootfs 800m@200m (truncated) > > user 0@1g (truncated) > > rest 0@1g > > Who would benefit from having those 2 0-sized partitions and how? How > many users/scripts would be confused by this (these 2 ghost partitions > would be visible in /proc/mtd and sysfs)? How much RAM would we spend > for creating sysfs files and directories for these ghost partitions > (note, one sysfs file costs a couple KiB I thing, because 'sizeof > (struct inode)'). > > While you suggestion is clever, do we really benefit from this?
Artem, please note this is just a side effect of what I've suggested (that its, continue parsing after first truncated partition), not a real use case I'd expect and intentionally wish to support. I am used to specify partitions explicitly using size@offset (specifying offset for all parts, even if sometimes adjacent), and sometimes in an unsorted fashion. I never defined some partition that got truncated, so the whole discussion is theoretical to _my_ usecase. The only benefit of continuing to parse, is that if there _are_ later partitions which are defined _explicitly_ with an offset, whose location is _before_ the truncated partition, these would still be parsed and registered. Not so important, and would rarely happen, but simplistic and naive. And reagrding 0 sized partitions, we can always skip these. Regards, Shmulik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/