From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 18 15:59:56 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807E61065670 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:59:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ulf.lilleengen@gmail.com) Received: from bene2.itea.ntnu.no (bene2.itea.ntnu.no [IPv6:2001:700:300:3::57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30A68FC15 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:59:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ulf.lilleengen@gmail.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bene2.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCE89000B; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:59:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from carrot (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:3::184]) by bene2.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEB09000A; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:59:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:00:43 +0000 From: Ulf Lilleengen To: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <20090218170043.GA76148@carrot> References: <16678.1234910124@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at bene2.itea.ntnu.no Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , FreeBSD current mailing list Subject: Re: boot0cfg -s vs. GEOM_PART_*? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:59:57 -0000 On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:19:55PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > In message , Marcel > > Moolenaar wri > > tes: > > > >>> In message , Marcel > >>> Moolenaar wri > >>> tes: > >>> > >>>> For boot0cfg this is probably acceptable, because > >>>> it only operates on MBRs. But as a generic solution > >>>> this won't work. > >>> > >>> Then pick up the bootcode via ioctls, it does not belong > >>> in the confxml sysctl. > >> > >> On what grounds doesn't it belong in the confxml? > > > > Because the way we (currently) implement confxml and the uses it is > > put to would generally be greatly inconvenienced if you have to > > include > > 8KB of hexdump data in the xml stream. > > > >> And how do these not apply to ioctls? > > > > ioctls was designed and built to move binary blobs across the > > userland/kernel barrier to and from I/O devices. > How about the way that was done in GEOM_MBR? Defining a verb like "write MBR", and supply the mbr as a parameter with gctl? (Currently used by boot0cfg). -- Ulf Lilleengen