Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 11:55:12 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Looks like the arm 20220805 snapshots are still odd, so probably kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=0 was still in use Message-ID: <B1F1DA0E-128A-4778-8EF1-AD8F8F9102C5@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20220809181513.GG30607@FreeBSD.org> References: <6AF28022-A8E7-46B3-B64E-99D217E9B6AC@yahoo.com> <0E0083BD-A749-4112-8FDA-62326EA95F8A@freebsd.org> <CAPyFy2AfGxgND-2KaPUy8RnS6MYaxQBnGDPBkz9vDhLekNN%2BbQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220809181513.GG30607@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2022-Aug-9, at 11:15, Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 02:06:14PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 at 18:43, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Will do. I=E2=80=99ll commit the suggested change to main tomorrow.
>>>=20
>>> Thank you for your vigilant investigation.
>>=20
>> Shall I commit the enforce_chs check now?
>> ---
>> commit 6ee7d69e6b526f35789b23ba570025f1c3b39c1a
>> Author: Ed Maste <emaste@FreeBSD.org>
>> Date: Tue Jul 19 16:47:49 2022 -0400
>>=20
>> release: ensure enforce_chs sysctl is 0
>>=20
>> We do not want CHS-based alignment for VM or SD card release =
images.
>>=20
>> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation
>>=20
>> diff --git a/release/tools/arm.subr b/release/tools/arm.subr
>> index 6e4ae731a0b9..01c5303cd4e1 100644
>> --- a/release/tools/arm.subr
>> +++ b/release/tools/arm.subr
>> @@ -62,6 +62,10 @@ umount_loop() {
>> }
>>=20
>> arm_create_disk() {
>> + if [ $(sysctl -n kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs) !=3D 0 ]; =
then
>> + return 1
>> + fi
>> +
>> # Create the target raw file and temporary work directory.
>> chroot ${CHROOTDIR} gpart create -s ${PART_SCHEME} ${mddev}
>> if [ "${PART_SCHEME}" =3D "GPT" ]; then
>>=20
>=20
> Good question. Do we still want to ensure it is set to '0'? I'm a =
bit
> confused from the back-and-forth on the original thread.
>=20
> If we do want to ensure it is set to '0', yes, please go ahead.
>=20
Hopefully this week's experiment with explicitly avoiding BSD
and freebsd-ufs having the same offset inside BSD (avoiding
both offsets being zero) will allow the UFS labeling to work
right: freebsd-ufs being tied to a unique offset inside BSD.
I really doubt that using kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=3D1 to
cause the offsets to be different is reasonable, despite that
it happens to make them distinct: the freebsd-ufs offset is
better controlled explicitly elsewhere.
=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B1F1DA0E-128A-4778-8EF1-AD8F8F9102C5>