Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:10:24 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: mike@smith.net.au, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *HEADS UP* Correction to previous postings. Message-ID: <199803092210.OAA16255@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Mar 1998 21:20:15 %2B1100." <199803091020.VAA22972@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Please note that in the recent postings regarding the changes to the > >fashion in which the root filesystem is located and mounted there has > >been a fundamental factual error on my part. > > > >This error *will* cause users with dedicated disks serious problems, > >unless they adopt the same procedure require by non-dedicated disk > >users. > > > >The error in this case was the assumption that partitions on a dedicated > >disk were handled as though they were truly equivalent to the > >compatability slice entries. > > A correct assumption. This doesn't appear to be borne out in any consistent fashion. > >This is not correct; rather they appear > >as though they were in the first slice on the disk. > > Not with normal slice naming. The first slice (s1) doesn't exist on > dangerously dedicated disks. Rev.1.88 of autoconf.c just breaks > support for dangerously dedicated disks. Rev.1.87 was correct in > this areas, except it spells COMPATIBILITY_SLICE as 0. That's odd then; libdisk calls them 'xdNs1', and you appear to be able to mount them like that. More significantly, the bootstrap passes the invalid slice number 1 in; using this is guaranteed to result in failure, as there aren't any devices with a '1' in the slice field. I believed that I had, actually, tested on a dedicated-disk system, however it appears otherwise. 8( > disks are not as easy to create as they used to be. Mine have > an all-zero DOS partition table. The update procedure for > dangerously-dedicated disks is to back out rev.1.88 of autoconf.c. *sigh* I thought that I had established this correctly twice now, based on code study and our earlier discussions. Can I please confirm, so that this isn't screwed for good? - If the slice number from the bootstrap is in the range BASE_SLICE to MAX_SLICES, it is OK to insert this as-is into the root device minor number. - If the slice number is < BASE_SLICE, the correct minor for the root device will have a 0 in the slice field. ie. I should be using COMPATABILITY_SLICE not BASE_SLICE in the test in setroot()? Thanks. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803092210.OAA16255>