Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:29:11 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: geom_fox vs geom_multipath? Message-ID: <j5pun7$hb1$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20110922105105.GA1662@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <1108033999.20110921224848@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20110922105105.GA1662@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigCCCDF394FC0BB5C6AC8E07D1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 22/09/2011 12:51, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:48:48PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> Hello, Freebsd-geom. >> >> We have both geom_fox without control utility and strange way of >> labelling and "conventional" geom_multipath. >> >> They seems to perform same task, but geom_multipath looks like >> "normal" module and geom_fox is very old one, before "rules" for >> modules was settled (metadata in first sector, no control utility, >> etc). >> >> Is it intentional? :) >=20 > The geom_fox class is more of an example GEOM class. Should it be disconnected from the build? I don't think it's ever used in practice... --------------enigCCCDF394FC0BB5C6AC8E07D1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6AficACgkQldnAQVacBch7iwCgm/5IO7hY0+BpAc+OteQgeSc7 LLQAoI+N3daWlikSxsMv/p6jf5ptFYJA =wAsU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigCCCDF394FC0BB5C6AC8E07D1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?j5pun7$hb1$1>