On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:34:37PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Your angle is slightly different from mine. We do share that the on-disk > and in-core data can differ, but you seem to allow editing of the > in-core Yes I want to allow editing of both, for more flexibility and safety. See below. > data by partitioning tools, while I don't. > > is dropped when the disk disappears. The on-disk data can be modified > by partitioning tools. The in-core data does not change because of that, > but the in-core data can be brought in sync with the on-disk data by > some means (sysctl, ioctl or whatever). The in-core data cannot be > edited > on its own. It bring some problems like illegal on-disk modification synced to in-core. Since on-disk editing is not controlled (and should not be), it may overlap or be incorrect in some other way. But, if you edit in-core partition instead, as I suggest, you can do all sorts of checking and safety, easily excluding overlaps, etc. I.e. I suggest in-core->on-disk sync (which always write checked result) instead of can't be checked on-disk->in-core sync. -- http://ache.pp.ru/Received on Fri Apr 08 2005 - 03:51:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:31 UTC