On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 10:43 -0600, David Lehman wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 14:57 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> If there is an existing format, but we cannot recognize it we shouldn't
consider
> it resizable.
This is going to need a slightly more complicated fix. If a device is
truly unformatted we should be able to resize it. See blivet commit
e411bd44f47d85, which I now believe I did wrong. I think I should have
set the name attribute -- not the type attr -- to the udev-provided
fstype so all the places where we check for a type of None would still
work and the UI stuff, which should use name instead of type, would all
show something other than "Unknown".
Patch changing that sent to the
list.
But still, how could we deal with the cases like the one described in
that bug? If there is a format we don't recognize how can we resize it?
If the device was truly unformatted, would it's format has the 'exists'
attribute set to True? I thought that is what makes a difference between
an unformatted device and a device with format we don't recognize.
Or would it be worth to mark devices that have the minSize = size as
"Not resizable"? That would also resolve that bug though in a completely
different way.
--
Vratislav Podzimek
Anaconda Rider | Red Hat, Inc. | Brno - Czech Republic