On Tue, 22 May 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Alan recently straightened me out with "EVMS/LVM is partitions done > right" > > so... why not implement partitions as simply doing block remaps to the > lower level device? That's what EVMS/LVM/md are doing already. Because we still need the partitioning code for backwards compatibility. There's no way I'm going to use initrd to do partition setup with lvmtools etc. Also, lvm and friends are _heavyweight_. The partitioning stuff should be _one_ add (and perhaps a range check) at bh submit time. None of this remapping crap. We don't need no steenking overhead for something we need to do anyway. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Tommy Hallgren
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Tommy Hallgren
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Andries . Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Andries . Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Martin Dalecki
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Alexander Viro
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Jeff Garzik
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Jens Axboe
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Jeff Garzik
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Jeff Garzik
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Andries . Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Martin Dalecki
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Andries . Brouwer
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Martin Dalecki
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Martin Dalecki
- Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Jeff Garzik