Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:23:10 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New option for newfs(3) to make life with GEOM easier Message-ID: <20070901092310.GO85633@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <3842.1188634387@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20070901074803.GM85633@comp.chem.msu.su> <3842.1188634387@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:13:07AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20070901074803.GM85633@comp.chem.msu.su>, Yar Tikhiy writes: > >Hi all, > > > >With some geom(4) modules saving their metadata in the last sectors > >of block devices such as disks and partitions, > > 1. If those geom modules do not reduce their providers to prevent > this metadata from being overwritten, they are buggy. In some scenarios, it can be desirable to newfs first, geom later. > 2. Why not simply allow the -s argument to newfs to be negative so > "-s -200" means "reserve 200 sectors" ? A negative argument to -s has been invalid till now, so we propose a new option for people to express their intentions explicitly. Personally, I don't mind the "-s -200" syntax, but many people consider overloaded arguments unintuitive and error-prone. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070901092310.GO85633>