Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 Apr 1996 06:37:59 +1000
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        bde@zeta.org.au, terry@lambert.org
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Subject:   Re: fdisk and partition info
Message-ID:  <199604012037.GAA03704@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >The correct soloution involves removing the bad144 code from the
>> >disk driver itself to divorce it from the disk driver level so
>> >that it can be applied to things like spanned volumes, etc..  Like
>> 
>> I did that more than a year ago.  UTST.

>Wow.  If this is the case, I will reinstall a WD1007 system with the
>bad144 code applied on a per slice basis instead of to the BSD
>partition as a whole,

This should work iff the slices are BSD partitions.

>and use the whole disk as one BSD disklabeled
>area spanning the 1024th cylinder.

? Then it wouldn't be sliced.

>Of course, this is impossible, since the job can't really be completed
>in the current device framework, and the bad144 code still relies on
>a bit in the disklabel to tell it is active on a partition, overall,
>instead of being on a per slice basis.

bad144 is only implemented for BSD slices.  General slices should use
something less evil.  However, there is nowhere in a general slice to
store the bits giving the sector sparing method (if any).

>And the boot code still considers the partition as a whole, using the
>disklabel flag, so the divorce I was suggesting is incomplete,

I did not divorce the bad144 code from the boot code or claim to do so
:-).

Bruce



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604012037.GAA03704>