From owner-freebsd-current Tue Feb 4 00:51:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA02441 for current-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02419 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id JAA27649 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:51:29 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.6.9) id JAA27524; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:44:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:44:27 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Good name for a dump(8) option? References: X-Mailer: Mutt 0.55-PL10 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: ; from Frank Durda IV on Feb 3, 1997 22:03:00 -0500 Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Frank Durda IV wrote: > Actually, "e" is an excellent choice since the official name for that point > on the tape is the "EOT" (End-Of-Tape), whether it be a reflective > marker or punch-out in the media. Hmm, it has been voted for "a" now (automatic EOF handling). > A question though. When you get the error back, what do you consider > the state of the block just written or group of blocks just written? I haven't even dealt with this... this magic used to be in dump all the time, it's only that you normally didn't hit EOM unless you specified a tape length longer than the actual length. > Some drives will report the EOT and keep recording the current block > then stop (returning errors for any additional blocks), some drives keep > recording despite reporting EOT (and you can run the tape off the spindle > if you aren't careful), and other drives will stop instantly and refuse to > write further when the EOT is encountered. Some even back the tape up and > write two EOF marks over the block if it spans the EOT mark. I think that's a matter of the driver. dump will probably trust it for whatever it reported to be written to the tape, when it returns from the write(2) call. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)