From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 22 20:28:51 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5F0106564A; Sun, 22 May 2011 20:28:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from mail.xcllnt.net (mail.xcllnt.net [70.36.220.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599658FC15; Sun, 22 May 2011 20:28:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-192-168-2-22.wifi.xcllnt.net (atm.xcllnt.net [70.36.220.6]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.xcllnt.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4MKSZh8010730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 22 May 2011 13:28:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Marcel Moolenaar In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 13:28:35 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6AE10D76-AC2F-4D7B-A985-EE072949ECC4@xcllnt.net> References: <201105152003.p4FK3tnS050889@svn.freebsd.org> <20110522093302.GA2638@mole.fafoe.narf.at> To: Warner Losh X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Adrian Chadd , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, "Andrey V. Elsukov" , Stefan Farfeleder , svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r221972 - head/sys/geom/part X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 20:28:51 -0000 On May 22, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > On May 22, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >=20 >> This also bit me on embedded platform stuff. >>=20 >> Is it possible to disable this by default for now and have it just = warn loudly? >> And/or hide the default value behind a kernel configuration variable >> so we can disable it >> (but still get the warnings) for now? >=20 > Or just delete it entirely as a bad idea? We had this with Marcel's = warning for a long time that turned out to be utterly bogus so we = removed it. Really? The warning wasn't bogus. It was there to help us understand what was going on and we found over time that it was a harmless condition. That's why we removed the warning. The warning was good to raise awareness. This is in no way similar to what we have now. Here we have to deal with broken and fundamentally invalid MBRs that has caused us harm before and we're trying to do something sensible. As it turns out, a whole bunch of people have invalid MBRs, probably caused by crappy tools. Now what do you suggest we should do? Accept it silently and suffer the consequences later, should we raise awareness so that administrators can try and fix things or should we reject the MBR out of pedanticism? Rather than just calling it a bad idea, why not come up with something constructive? --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net