[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Re: Multiple partition maps
From: |
phcoder |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Re: Multiple partition maps |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:16:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) |
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:47:11AM +0200, phcoder wrote:
>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:27:05PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
>>>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:54:43PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
>>>>>> BTW GPT module checks the protective MBR. In some cases when legay OS
>>>>>> modified the MBR it's no longer "protective MBR". And in theese cases
>>>>>> GRUB will refuse to boot. Isn't the magic number check enough?
>>>>> If there's at least one protective GPT partition (0xee), I think this
>>>>> should
>>>>> be considered enough to accept the partmap as GPT.
>>>>>
>>>> In GPT module if first partition is not of type 0xee then it's
>>>> considered that no GPT is present. Is think that this check is
>>>> error-prone (with e.g. bootcamp) and unnecessary
>>> Agreed. Can you fix this?
>>>
>> I send a patch for it. However I couldn't test it because of the bug in
>> the make system. About the bug I'll post in appropriate thread. In that
>> patch the pc module explicitely checks for the absence of GPT table. IMO
>> it's ugly. Another alternative would be to assign priorities to the
>> partition tables. I also tried this way and send patch for it. Again I
>> couldn't test it.
>
> This patch looks overly complicated. Fixing the discussed problem ought
> to be much simpler...
>
>> - /* Make sure the MBR is a protective MBR and not a normal MBR. */
>> - if (mbr.entries[0].type != GRUB_PC_PARTITION_TYPE_GPT_DISK)
>> - return grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_PART_TABLE, "no GPT partition map
>> found");
>
> ... here, it'd be just a matter of replacing this hardcoded '0' with an
> iterator.
>
> And maybe something similar for partmap/pc.c.
>
I don't think that this is enough since with bootcamp you can have a MBR
without a protective entry. This leaves us with just two option:
priorities and ugly check in partmap/pc.c. I would prefer the first one
since the second one is unextensible. With first one I'll be able to do
something similar to what you can find in other bootmanagers: ability to
have more then one "primary" partition (like in http://symon.ru ).
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
- Re: Multiple partition maps, (continued)
- Re: Multiple partition maps, Robert Millan, 2008/09/04
- Re: Multiple partition maps, phcoder, 2008/09/04
- Re: Multiple partition maps, phcoder, 2008/09/04
- Re: Multiple partition maps, Robert Millan, 2008/09/08
- Re: Multiple partition maps, phcoder, 2008/09/08
- Re: Multiple partition maps, Robert Millan, 2008/09/08
- Re: Multiple partition maps, phcoder, 2008/09/08
- [PATCH] Re: Multiple partition maps, phcoder, 2008/09/08
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Multiple partition maps, Robert Millan, 2008/09/09
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Multiple partition maps,
phcoder <=
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Multiple partition maps, Robert Millan, 2008/09/09