From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jun 21 01:37:23 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA02179
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seagull.rtd.com (root@seagull.rtd.com [198.102.68.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA02173
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dgy@localhost) by seagull.rtd.com (8.7.5/1.2) id BAA00819; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:35:25 -0700 (MST)
From: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com>
Message-Id: <199606210835.BAA00819@seagull.rtd.com>
Subject: Re: wd? numbering question
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 01:35:25 -0700 (MST)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, candy@fct.kgc.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <199606210655.IAA21411@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jun 21, 96 08:55:05 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

> >   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