From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May  3 02:04:29 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6E3F416A4CE; Mon,  3 May 2004 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6CCC143D3F; Mon,  3 May 2004 02:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4394Q18055895;
	Mon, 3 May 2004 11:04:26 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 May 2004 17:58:10 +0900."
             <20040503175810.62d3f0fb.nork@FreeBSD.org> 
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 11:04:26 +0200
Message-ID: <55894.1083575066@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: new GEOM feature - geom_vol_msdosfs 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations
	<freebsd-geom.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 09:04:29 -0000

In message <20040503175810.62d3f0fb.nork@FreeBSD.org>, Norikatsu Shigemura writ
es:
>	I made a geom_vol_msdosfs GEOM module.  It provides a feature
>	like geom_vol_ffs. 

I think this is a great idea!

I wonder if it would be smarter to collect all these in one geom
class rather than have one for each volume label metadata format,
having it in one GEOM class would simplify name-collision handling.

On the other hand, name collisions are already passively neutered
in DEVFS, so if we can live with "Don't do that then" handling of
it, then there is no reason to not have them as different GEOM
classes, which certainly makes for simpler and cleaner code.

(Summary: Do it whatever way you prefer :-)

Poul-Henning

PS:
I would love to see handling of ISO 9660 (CDROM) volume labels as well.

PPS:
When you commit, please put it in a subcatalog under sys/geom.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.