[parted-devel] Bug: Removal of BLKPG causes regression of ability to manipulate disks with other partitions in use

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 03/18/2010 09:49 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 3/18/2010 3:50 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> 1) If a partition number changes, should it be marked as dirty
>>     (So removed and re-added using BLKPG), IMHO: Yes
>>
>> 2) What if sda7 is busy ? Options:
>>     a) leave it as sda7, inconsequent with parted print output,
>>        end result confused user, also see below wrt fstab
>>     b) Fail the commit
>>        User: but I'm allowed to change partitions as long as I
>>        don't touch the ones which are in use,
>>        end result confused user
>
> I think the only option is to require that the removal of an extended
> partition that would cause such a renumbering should fail.  The user
> will not be confused because they will get the same message they do now
> when BLKRRPART fails, telling them that the kernel is still using the
> old table and they need to reboot for the changes to take effect.  The
> only difference from using BLKRRPART would be that the partitions NOT in
> use with numbers higher than the one that was in use will have already
> been removed from the kernel.
>

True, that would work. Note that you will need to get Jim Meyering
to buy on on this approach as well for it to get accepted upstream.

Regards,

Hans