From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 18 15:00:25 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216E71065748; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:00:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087F38FC16; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:00:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id SAA13173; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:00:19 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4F8ED702.4020803@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:00:18 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120314 Thunderbird/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Lepore References: <4F8999D2.1080902@FreeBSD.org> <201204171643.39447.jhb@freebsd.org> <4F8E58EE.8080909@FreeBSD.org> <201204180941.24699.jhb@freebsd.org> <1334758943.1082.242.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <4F8ED187.9030108@FreeBSD.org> <1334760007.1082.243.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <1334760007.1082.243.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin 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 15:00:25 -0000 on 18/04/2012 17:40 Ian Lepore said the following: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 17:36 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 18/04/2012 17:22 Ian Lepore said the following: >>> YES! A size field (preferably as the first field in the struct) along >>> with a flag to indicate that it's a new-style boot info struct that >>> starts with a size field, will allow future changes without a lot of >>> drama. It can allow code that has to deal with the struct without >>> interpretting it (such as trampoline code that has to copy it to a new >>> stack or memory area as part of loading the kernel) to be immune to >>> future changes. >> >> Yeah, placing the new field at front would immediately break compatibility and >> even access to the flags field :-) >> > > Code would only assume the new field was at the front of the struct if > the new flag is set, otherwise it would use the historical struct > layout. Right, but where the flag would reside? And how the older code that is not aware of the new flag would cope with the new layout? -- Andriy Gapon