Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:45:03 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: FreeBSD <freebsd@KIWI-Computer.com> Cc: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of Disklabel Message-ID: <20001120204503.B2965@student.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <200011201458.IAA44992@KIWI-Computer.com>; from freebsd@KIWI-Computer.com on Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:58:50AM -0600 References: <200011201332.eAKDWTB68389@cwsys.cwsent.com> <200011201458.IAA44992@KIWI-Computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:58:50AM -0600, FreeBSD wrote: > > The problem with the fdisk slices is that there is only room for 4 ... > disklabel gives us 8, no wait.. 6 if you have a swap and 5 if you don't. > > I've never been a fan of this. May I make a recommendation (flame away, > boys): redo disklabel while we're at it. it seems counter-intuitive to > me, as well as wasteful, to make partition "c" the whole disk and skip "d" > altogether. IMHO, "da0s1" should refer to the whole disk, "da0s1a" should > be the first physical partition, "da0s1b" the second partition, etc. down > to "h". This gives us 8 partitions of any type: swap or FS. This is not > ambiguous, the "swapon" would detect in the label p_fstype and if it were > not equal to FS_SWAP it wouldn't try to swap-mount it. Same goes for any > FS mount, if p_fstype != FS_BSDFFS or whatnot, it wouldn't allow mounting > of that FS. > I agree fully. Anybody know why it was done as it currently is originally? -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001120204503.B2965>