Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:09:42 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Gergely CZUCZY <phoemix@harmless.hu> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New option for newfs(3) to make life with GEOM easier Message-ID: <20070901120941.GQ85633@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20070901093035.GA18069@harmless.hu> References: <20070901074803.GM85633@comp.chem.msu.su> <3842.1188634387@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070901092310.GO85633@comp.chem.msu.su> <20070901093035.GA18069@harmless.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:30:35AM +0200, Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:23:10PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:13:07AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > I think this "-s <negative>" syntax is just fine. As far as > the manual will mention this, there's no problem with it. > Introducing a new exclusive option could result in people > trying to use both at the same time :) FWIW, the code proposed is robust to specifying both options and has the following semanics: attemt to create the file system in the first S sectors but make sure that there are at least R spare sectors left at the end. It's documented in the manpage patch. :-) -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070901120941.GQ85633>