Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:18:50 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mounting CD-ROM when data not on first track Message-ID: <Mutt.19970202101850.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199702020055.RAA07106@phaeton.artisoft.com>; from Terry Lambert on Feb 1, 1997 17:55:19 -0700 References: <Mutt.19970202011243.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199702020055.RAA07106@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Terry Lambert wrote: > I think I lean more towards "the first data track of any session is the > first track of the session". While this sentence is self-contradictionary, i get your point. > > Because it always starts at the beginning, and covers the entire data > > area. You could look at it as if it were a huge sparse file in this > > special situation: seek to the right location, and you'll be able to > > read the data. > > But it's not a data area... or rather, it's not a 'data' area. Doesn't matter. Disk frame numbers don't distinguish between data or audio areas. Things like the CD9660 code are meant in terms of disk frame numbers however, so you have to hole out the !data areas. They are valid frame numbers (block numbers in the SCSI sense), it's only that you cannot READ them. > Does anyone else have this CD? Do you have a MacOS or SunOS or older > Windows box with ASPI or proprietary CDROM driver you can try it in? > If the non-Joliet aware OS recognizes it, I'd think that the FreeBSD > interpretation is probably wrong. FreeBSD doesn't have any interpretation at all by now, so you don't need this contest. Its only `interpretation' by now is ``all the world's a data disk from the beginning through the end, and we assume the directory tree won't touch outside the disk area''. > The software we run on our mastering burners here knows about writing > additional sessions. We are looking forward to your submission. Please, contact ports@freebsd.org to make it a new port. Uh, it's not available in source form? Too bad. :-)] > It seems that > Microsoft (stupidly) can not force a program image to be entirely > resident in memory, and will blue-screen if the image is from a disc > that has been removed, and it wants to page from it. Why do you call this `stupid'? That's the same way every Unix does. It's only that they probably miss the mount philosophy, so they could have locked the medium until it will no longer be required for paging. > Why would you need 99 sub-devices? Because it's the most logical way. I don't wanna enforce a policy (like ISO-9660) in the device driver, since that's a matter of the filesystem code. A non-CD9660 CD for example might contain up to 99 UFS filesystems, one per each track, which are fully self-contained (i.e., with block numbers relative to the start of the track, as any UFS used to have). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970202101850.j>