Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:13:15 +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> Subject: Re: boot0cfg -s vs. GEOM_PART_*? Message-ID: <18684.1234944795@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:19:55 PST." <B0DD65C3-4792-47C4-9BBE-E33BD58EA537@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <B0DD65C3-4792-47C4-9BBE-E33BD58EA537@mac.com>, Marcel Moolenaar wri tes: >I'll consider this. > > From my perspective: > >o The fact that we have a separate OAM interface that > doesn't use file descriptors (at the application > level), having to use ioctl(2) all of a sudden is... > well... odd. Likewise for regular read/write. Just > for boot code do we need o worry about mapping GEOM > names to device special files. You can use g_ctl instead of ioctl if you want, it just does not belong in the xml. -- 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?18684.1234944795>