From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 16:14:57 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114F916A41F for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:14:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F2543D45 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:14:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from niksun.com (anuket [10.70.0.5]) by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j89GKA35055060; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:20:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Peter Wemm Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:14:37 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200509081418.47794.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <200509081652.56550.peter@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <200509081652.56550.peter@wemm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509091214.41429.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.85.1/1073/Fri Sep 9 11:13:08 2005 on anuket.mj.niksun.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bigger boot block size? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:14:57 -0000 On Thursday 08 September 2005 07:52 pm, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:18 am, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > I have been working on boot2 recently. I faced constant problem > > with boot2 size limitation. Can we have bigger boot block size > > (aka BBSIZE)? In the future, we may have to support different > > file system to boot from and we won't have any space to add the > > support without dropping UFS1 support. In fact, I am using > > 32-sector boot block and I don't see any problem so far. The > > patch that I've been using is attached. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jung-uk Kim > > Well, the obvious problem is that this can't be used on a UFS1 > partition which has just 8K reserved.. Sigh... But bsdlabel(8) should be able to handle this case when '-B' option is given and first partition of the slice is UFS1, i. e., we keep 'historical' boot1/boot2 for a while and drop the support later. ;-) Jung-uk Kim