From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 8 05:51:48 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 3B4DF16A4CE for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 05:51:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D71143D5A for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 05:51:47 +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 j385pkff006280; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:51:46 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j385pktP006279; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:51:46 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:51:45 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <20050408055144.GA6147@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> <20050408050405.GA5203@nagual.pp.ru> <19f3c4e12937f581f7420bc841a11810@xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19f3c4e12937f581f7420bc841a11810@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 09:51:46 +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 05:51:48 -0000 On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:34:37PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Your angle is slightly different from mine. We do share that the on-disk > and in-core data can differ, but you seem to allow editing of the > in-core Yes I want to allow editing of both, for more flexibility and safety. See below. > data by partitioning tools, while I don't. > > is dropped when the disk disappears. The on-disk data can be modified > by partitioning tools. The in-core data does not change because of that, > but the in-core data can be brought in sync with the on-disk data by > some means (sysctl, ioctl or whatever). The in-core data cannot be > edited > on its own. It bring some problems like illegal on-disk modification synced to in-core. Since on-disk editing is not controlled (and should not be), it may overlap or be incorrect in some other way. But, if you edit in-core partition instead, as I suggest, you can do all sorts of checking and safety, easily excluding overlaps, etc. I.e. I suggest in-core->on-disk sync (which always write checked result) instead of can't be checked on-disk->in-core sync. -- http://ache.pp.ru/