[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080609194928.GM5609@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:49:29 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>,
Marcin Krol <hawk@...-linux.org>, jejb@...nel.org,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@...il.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>, stable@...nel.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [stable] [patch 21/50] brd: dont show ramdisks in /proc/partitions
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:08:40AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...nel.org) wrote:
> > This seems a bit like cargo cult programming to me. If there isn't a
> > known, good, reason to revert this behaviour change, I would consider it
> > a bugfix, not a regression.
>
> We have one /proc/partitions parser that got broken (never saw details
> on how). I don't care for this change either (esp. since nbd is still
> left out...it's inconsistent).
I also had one of my old install scripts proposing me to choose between
16 ramdisks to install to. Quite bothering in fact. I'm not sure we
really can consider ramdisks as partitions. Also, all of them are listed,
whether they are initialized or not.
In fact, I was glad to see this "fixed" with this patch.
Regards,
willy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists