Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:35:25 -0700 (MST) From: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, candy@fct.kgc.co.jp Subject: Re: wd? numbering question Message-ID: <199606210835.BAA00819@seagull.rtd.com> In-Reply-To: <199606210655.IAA21411@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jun 21, 96 08:55:05 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Thank you for your advice. So, I ask again, why wd1 is not defined > > as "disk wd1 at wdc? drive ?" ? Doesn't it work? > > Don't think this would work -- but that doesn't mean it sounds > unreasonable. I think you'll get bit because the /dev/wd* entries would need a different minor device encoding scheme (I'm assuming he's asking to have wd0 be the *first* wd drive and wd1 be the second -- regardless of which controller! so wd1 could end up on wdc1) > Use send-pr(1) to submit your patches. :-) Funny guy... ;-) --don
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606210835.BAA00819>