From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 22 20:27:40 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A803106566B; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:27:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5449B8FC12; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:27:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id WAA21745; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:27:38 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1RdpEn-0000Et-Fz; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:27:37 +0200 Message-ID: <4EF39280.9030907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:26:40 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111206 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Motin References: <201112221640.pBMGeZod025237@svn.freebsd.org> <4EF375E5.2010809@FreeBSD.org> <4EF387F4.9050008@FreeBSD.org> <4EF3890B.6020408@FreeBSD.org> <4EF38D96.3040601@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EF38D96.3040601@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r228808 - head/sys/cam/scsi X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:27:40 -0000 on 22/12/2011 22:05 Alexander Motin said the following: > On 22.12.2011 21:46, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> BTW, acd(4) ... not sure which tense I should use here ... used to create >> individual devices for each track - e.g. acd0t1, acd0t2 - where each track could >> have its own properties. > > Yes, I know. But that's a bigger blood, and I am not sure we need it. I am not > sure that this approach is correct for data tracks, as up to my present > understanding, later data tracks may address data on previous ones, so they can > not reside on different devices. For audio tracks it could be more useful, but > do you know applications using this? I have never researched this. -- Andriy Gapon