disk: tweak ensure{Btrfs,LVM}() to be more linear #1073
Conversation
Tiny drive-by commit to make `ensure{Btrfs,LVM}()` more linear to read.
I.e. avoid nested if/else when returning and do error checks early.
| } else { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("Unsupported parent for LVM") | ||
| part.Type = "8e" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's make this a package constant alongside the others.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can push it here:
diff --git a/pkg/disk/disk.go b/pkg/disk/disk.go
index fdfd027cb..25da6d657 100644
--- a/pkg/disk/disk.go
+++ b/pkg/disk/disk.go
@@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ const (
// Partition type ID for ESP on dos
DosESPID = "ef00"
+
+ // Partition type ID for LVM partitions on dos
+ DosLvmID = "8e"
)
// pt type -> type -> ID mapping for convenience
diff --git a/pkg/disk/partition_table.go b/pkg/disk/partition_table.go
index d91df09bd..947631b37 100644
--- a/pkg/disk/partition_table.go
+++ b/pkg/disk/partition_table.go
@@ -733,7 +733,7 @@ func (pt *PartitionTable) ensureLVM() error {
if pt.Type == PT_GPT {
part.Type = LVMPartitionGUID
} else {
- part.Type = "8e"
+ part.Type = DosLvmID
}
return nilbut what is curious is that https://github.com/osbuild/images/blob/main/pkg/disk/disk.go#L82 uses a different DOS id for lvm it seems?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think 83 is still valid as it covers any generic Linux partition type but according to https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Partition-Mass-Storage-Definitions-Naming-HOWTO/x190.html you're right, 8e is specific for LVM, so let's add 8e and add it to the ID map.
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove "Stale" label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days. |
|
This PR was closed because it has been stalled for 30+7 days with no activity. |
Tiny drive-by commit to make
ensure{Btrfs,LVM}()more linear to read. I.e. avoid nested if/else when returning and do error checks early.Best viewed side-by-side as the diff makes it hard to follow.
[edit: moved to draft as I have not inspected how much testing this function has, I'm pretty confident in the change but would really like to double check the test situation as well]
[edit2: played around a bit more with the tests and it seems it's well covered so moving out of draft again]