From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 5 08:32:51 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id IAA22785 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 08:32:51 -0700 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA22779 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 08:32:50 -0700 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id IAA08556; Wed, 5 Apr 1995 08:32:01 -0700 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199504051532.IAA08556@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: swap always use at least 64KB ? To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 08:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199504051101.EAA00175@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Apr 5, 95 04:01:43 am Content-Type: text Content-Length: 722 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >Similar snooping is required for protecting the MBR and secondary BR's. > > There were two manifestations. It would either destroy your label (I think > this was in the SCSI case) or it would get EROFS when the swap pager tried to > page something out to it. I think the 'destroy your label' problem was fixed > awhile ago. Now the pager just fails with the EROFS. ...Anyway, the first > chunk can't be used. And I can actually think of a couple of usefull uses for that chunk of data. Extending the message-buffer comes to mind... -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'