From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 4 10:52:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA04643 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA04635 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA12897; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:50:12 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199702041850.LAA12897@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Mounting CD-ROM when data not on first track To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:50:12 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "J Wunsch" at Feb 3, 97 09:30:55 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > You mean, like putting in partition recognition code in the kernel > > instead of putting it in the FS instead (like you are suggesting here)? > > No. These dreaded CD-ROM tracks have one thing different from normal > partitions: the filesystem code in it still references the disk by > absolute frame (block) numbers. Filesystems that live in partitions > do not do this, they describe the filesystem relative to the start of > the partition. This puts a nasty spin on things. On the other hand, supporting a logical-to-physical mapping layer that implemented bad144 would have similar issues. I think the device specific code could export the block relativity interface, while still enforcing range checking. We'd have to be able to access this to veto install on a partition which was below C 1024 but which contained a replacement block above C 1024. Ah, the vagries of PC manufacturer implementation of "standards" applies to ISO9660 as well, it seems. 8-(. > > > Sticky bit? Terry, you're riding your time-machine again, you're > > > currently some ten years back. > > > > If you will recall, I've requested the ability to force images totally > > into local cache on a per FS basis by attributing the FS as "nonlocal". > > Sorry, i misread your comment and thought you were referring to > something that does already exist. Heh... through no fault of my own, you might add... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.