Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:31:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary Message-ID: <3D9D43D0.5F4D1B22@mindspring.com> References: <200210040608.CAA17124@repulse.cnchost.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bakul Shah wrote: > phk writes: > > You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such > > historically interesting decisions. > > I am aware of the technical arguments discussed via -arch, > -current & -hackers. I just don't agree with them (seems > like most hackers who are afraid to cross you). Here is a rehash of all the arguments which involved Kirk McKusick, or people quoting or responding to him: <http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/search.cgi?words=kirk+AND+block+AND+devices&max=25&sort=score&index=all&source=freebsd-arch>; It includes the Linux emulation issue for Sybase and Informix, as well as the EXT2FS utilities, system dump images (only this last, since fixed), etc.. The VMware issue is a Linux emulation issue. There are a couple of MSDOS FS layouts that would result in the same issue, as well as WINE issues. These are fixable, because source code is available. My comments in response to Kirk are also there, along with everyone else who voiced a response. > Julian writes: > > He had some backing, for example Kirk made a good argument for removing > > them. The arguments about not being able to do devfs and geom without > > removing them are of course specious as it can and was done before > > by others. > > Hmm.. I don't recall Kirk McKusick's argument for removing a > buffered block device. Here is the most specific statement; it quotes, inclusively, a previous statement by him on the issue. <http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=81284+85591+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd-arch/19991017.freebsd-arch>; For the record, I am against a bikeshed, now, just as much as I was against the removal of block devices, then. What's done is done, and all that's left for people to do is to pick up the pieces that come from the changes they make. > > One provides a stacking system for disk geometries wand layouts > > where the upper interface is the same as that provided by the actual > > disk. > > Thanks! This is the (now old) "slice vs. GEOM" argument. Ignore it. Core did not override Poul's actions in this regard at the time, it's no use revisiting them now, if nothing useful is going to come from it. We are all already on record as to which positions we supported, though it's harder to search for "slice" and get useful results from the mailing list archive search engine. Here is Julian's initial announcement of his "slice" code that went with his "devfs" code: <http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=689041+0+archive/1997/freebsd-hackers/19971123.freebsd-hackers>; -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D9D43D0.5F4D1B22>