From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 1 12:10:35 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A0A16A417 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:10:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE3913C45B for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:10:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l81C9huO019364; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:09:43 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l81C9gYf019363; Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:09:42 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:09:42 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Gergely CZUCZY Message-ID: <20070901120941.GQ85633@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20070901074803.GM85633@comp.chem.msu.su> <3842.1188634387@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070901092310.GO85633@comp.chem.msu.su> <20070901093035.GA18069@harmless.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070901093035.GA18069@harmless.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Dmitry Morozovsky , fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New option for newfs(3) to make life with GEOM easier X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:10:35 -0000 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 " 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