From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 18 13:54:55 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58476106567C; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:54:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2628FC15; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E27FB95E; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:54:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Andriy Gapon Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:41:24 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p13; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <4F8999D2.1080902@FreeBSD.org> <201204171643.39447.jhb@freebsd.org> <4F8E58EE.8080909@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F8E58EE.8080909@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201204180941.24699.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [review request] zfsboot/zfsloader: support accessing filesystems within a pool 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:54:55 -0000 On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:02:22 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 17/04/2012 23:43 John Baldwin said the following: > > On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:22:19 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> We already have a flag for ZFS (KARGS_FLAGS_ZFS, 0x4). So the new flag could be > >> named something ZFS-specific (as silly as KARGS_FLAGS_ZFS2) or something more > >> general such as KARGS_FLAGS_32_BYTES meaning that the total size of arguments > >> area is 32 bytes (as opposed to 24 previously). > > > > Does KARGS_FLAGS_GUID work? > > > > I think that's too terse, we already passed a pool guid via the existing > argument space. So it should be something like KARGS_FLAGS_ZFS_FS_GUID or > KARGS_FLAGS_ZFS_DS_GUID (DS - dataset). Ah. I do think the flag should indicate that the bootinfo structure is larger, I was assuming you were adding a new GUID field that didn't exist before. I can't think of something better than KARGS_FLAGS_32. What might be nice actually, is to add a new field to indicate the size of the argument area and to set a flag to indicate that the size field is present (KARGS_FLAGS_SIZE)? Hmm, looks like we should name this structure and move it and the relevant KARGS_FLAGS_* fields into a header while we are at it? -- John Baldwin