From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 15 16:24:07 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA03281 for current-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:24:07 -0800 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA03275 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:24:06 -0800 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id QAA08809; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:23:59 -0800 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199503160023.QAA08809@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: newfs: sectors per cylinder (4096) disagrees with disk label (36) To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:23:59 -0800 (PST) Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <9503160001.AA15691@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Mar 15, 95 05:01:24 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1008 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry, you are mostly right. I view it this way: 1) The device-driver may use a geometry(A) to access the disk. 2) The UFS may be created with a geometry(B) != geometry(A) 3) The device driver may need to read the geometry(A) from the disklabel, because the BIOS lies and the drive is too dumb to answer the question. The disklabel is the only place this can come from. >From these three I determine that there is only a weak, if any, relation between the geometry(disklabel) and geometry(filesystem). I don't see any point in having the device-drivers even know about geometry, considering that LFS for instance doesn't care a hoot, and I will strongly work to get the ties already in place broken. Therefore I proposed the changes already listed, they should take care of any case I can see on the horizon. -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'