[parted-devel] [BUG] failing ioctl when informing the kernel about new partitions

[Bryn M. Reeves]

Petr Uzel wrote:
> But isn't BKLPG interface superior to BLKRRPART in the fact that the
> kernel doesn't need to have support for particular type of disk label
> compiled in? If this is true, then it might be worth trying to extend
> BLKPG interface to support this kind of overlapping partitions instead
> of reverting back to BLKRRPART. What do you think?

To come back to this specific point: I considered this some time ago 
but didn't follow up on it as it seemed there were some difficult 
problems.

We could just relax all the constraints on BLKPG and let userspace do 
whatever it wants, but that seems like it creates potential for a 
misbehaving userspace tool to cause serious chaos.

An alternative is to extend the interface to allow extra annotation 
(e.g. to some how express that two partitions have a relationship such 
as exists with DOS MBRs and extended/logical partitions).

This seemed to get complicated/ugly and I really didn't spend much 
time thinking about it.

Regards,
Bryn.