From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 8 05:04:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CFC16A4CE for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 05:04:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EE743D53 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 05:04:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j38548NF005655; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:04:08 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j38547ku005654; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:04:07 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:04:06 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <20050408050405.GA5203@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , Marcel Moolenaar , Poul-Henning Kamp , current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <21342.1112914675@critter.freebsd.dk> <09c6072206df99be25e345b7e13354f5@xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <09c6072206df99be25e345b7e13354f5@xcllnt.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter (version: 1.1.0-3; AVE: 6.30.0.7; VDF: 6.30.0.74; host: nagual.pp.ru) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (nagual.pp.ru [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:04:08 +0400 (MSD) cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GEOM architecture and the (lack of) need for foot-shooting X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:04:10 -0000 On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:06:20PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Typical problem cases include partial overlaps between on-disk and > in-core partitions. This is easy to catch and can always result in a I don't think that in-core and on-disk partition must have influence to each other in any way. Better for them be completely independent. Once read, in-core partition should not know anything about what happens with on-disk one. > I think that having a single view is probably what's biting. If you Yes. But who speak about single view? If we have in-core and on-disk partition separately, we need _two_ independent views, choosed f.e. by some option. -- http://ache.pp.ru/