Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:58:56 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, FreeBSD current mailing list <current@freebsd.org>, Ulf Lilleengen <ulf.lilleengen@gmail.com> Subject: Re: boot0cfg -s vs. GEOM_PART_*? Message-ID: <15552.1234900736@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:59:57 PST." <9FE792C6-8560-4C64-BD74-CD70DF5EBBF5@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <9FE792C6-8560-4C64-BD74-CD70DF5EBBF5@mac.com>, Marcel Moolenaar wri tes: >That won't be as easy as boot0cfg. Both fdisk and bsdlabel >do all partitioning operations in memory and then expect to >dump/write the blob. This is not how gpart works, so there's >a mismatch in paradigm. The reason for that modus operandi, was that the kernel only needed code to read the metadata, the software that formatted and wrote the metadata could be contained entirely in userland thus not bloating the kernel. Your choice is legit as well, with today RAM sizes I doubt the difference is measureable. But not updating boot0cfg to support the new API got you a bad mark in my book. I would prefer if fdisk and bsdlabel also kept working or at least gave some guidance on what to do. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15552.1234900736>