From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Dec 10 20:15:29 2000 From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 10 20:15:27 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from cypherpunks.ai (cypherpunks.ai [209.88.68.47]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713A837B401 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:15:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from vangelderen.org (grolsch.ai [209.88.68.214]) by cypherpunks.ai (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE08D4D; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:15:24 -0400 (AST) Sender: gelderen@cypherpunks.ai Message-ID: <3A3454DC.5A9E7FF1@vangelderen.org> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:15:24 -0400 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Julian Elischer , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inheriting the "nodump" flag ? References: <440.976476322@critter> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <3A33BF4B.97EE1BCC@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes: This is not correct. Please be careful with your attributions... > >> It looks like NetBSD have already addressed the problem a > >> year ago: > >> > >> http://lists.openresources.com/NetBSD/tech-kern/msg00453.html > >> > >> for the beginning of a thread discussing the problem. This > >> was the first hit Google returned for "nodump flag". Basic > >> research is cheap these days... > >> > >> A look at the NetBSD PR in question (6705) reveals: > >> http://www.NetBSD.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=6705 > > Well, then we just need somebody to MFN it... The NetBSD dump seems to be more evolved than the FreeBSD version. I've partially merged the NetBSD changes into our dump, just enough so that the 'nodump' flag is handled properly. I will merge the rest of the NetBSD changes as well if there is interest. A dump/fs guru will have to review these as I must have made mistakes. For now you can try the (lightly tested) patch at http://grolsch.ai/~gelderen/dump.diff It's bigger than strictly neccessary but I have tried to minimize the diffs between the two BSDs. I had some doubts about merging the byte-order support but decided that it seemed useful enough and actually didn't affect the readability of the code negatively; Hence the iswap32()s. I have some patches for the NetBSD folks as well and if both parties accept them we can have a virtually identical traverse.c on the two BSDs. What do you think? Cheers, Jeroen -- Jeroen C. van Gelderen o _ _ _ jeroen@vangelderen.org _o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_) _< \_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/ (_)>(_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message