From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Apr 30 03:22:57 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id DAA16865
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 03:22:57 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA16858
          for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 03:22:44 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA22020; Sun, 30 Apr 1995 20:18:57 +1000
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 20:18:57 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199504301018.UAA22020@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: Pat_Barron@transarc.com, current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Two questions/comments about latest -current snapshot....
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>     1)  Now that the disk slice code is in place, shouldn't fdisk
>be changed to use "/dev/rwd0" instead of "/dev/rwd0d"?  (That's
>a rhetorical question, of course - it seems pretty clear that this
>should be done.....).  [BTW, the error messages that came out of

It should be changed to have no default.

>the disk slice code the first time I booted this kernel were pretty
>scary - talking about partitions being rejected because they were
>not contained entirely within the slice.  It's also pretty scary
>that, when it discovered this, it apparently modified the on-disk
>copy of the disk label.  For safety, shouldn't I have had to do that
>manually?  It's sort of disconcerting to have stuff dinking with the
>on-disk disk label behind my back.....]

It actually only modifies the in-core label.  The modifications to
the on-disk label are only apparent - if you look at them with
`disklabel -r' or `od', then you will see a modified version, but
if you boot an old kernel then you will see the unmodified version.
Writing back the modified version will of course affect the rejected
and truncated partition entries.

Bruce