[parted-devel] [PATCH 1/2] libparted: use PED_MAX in dm_reread_part_table (#803108)

[Phillip Susi]

On 4/25/2012 2:46 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> So I wonder, why do we do this at all? Why not just use largest_partnum?
> The reason why I reverted instead of just switching to using largest is
> that I don't know if there was a good reason for always doing the first
> 16 partitions or not.

In the normal path the partition table can have more partitions than the 
kernel supports, so you need to not try to add more than what the kernel 
can handle.  The dm code was probably loosely based on the normal path 
but it was hard coded to 16 rather than using 
_device_get_partition_range() to get the actual value.

Since there really isn't a limit for dm devices, it probably should just 
use largest_partnum, or the whole function should go away entirely as in 
my refactorization patch.