Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:25:29 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD current mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: boot0cfg -s vs. GEOM_PART_*? Message-ID: <20090221082155.T53478@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <725CDB16-7D31-42C9-924E-DB6B595BF071@mac.com> References: <20090217113718.N53478@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <725CDB16-7D31-42C9-924E-DB6B595BF071@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
Hi,
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
>> dopt# gpart set -a active -i 3 ad4
>> gpart: pre-check failed: Device not configured
>
> Oops. This is a bug. The pre-check is not implemented
> for the MBR scheme and should succeed. I seem to have
> forgotten about the error that unimplemented methods
> return (KOBJ default). I'll fix this right away...
Thanks. I see boot0cfg no longer errors but I am not sure if it does
the right thing:
boot0cfg -s 5 ad0
(doesn't atter if it's 0 or 2 to the -s options) as
dopt# gpart show ad0
=> 63 312581745 ad0 MBR (149G)
63 122881122 1 !7 (59G)
122881185 2939895 - free - (1.4G)
125821080 125821080 2 freebsd (60G)
251642160 60934545 3 freebsd [active] (29G)
312576705 5103 - free - (2.5M)
seems s3 is still active.
That leaves me to the question - what's the boot0cfg -s5 equivalent
with gpart?
I think adding that to the man page might be a good idea.
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090221082155.T53478>