From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 6 01:27:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA04987 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 01:27:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ceia.nordier.com (196-31-98-194.iafrica.com [196.31.98.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA04982 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 01:27:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rnordier@nordier.com) Received: (from rnordier@localhost) by ceia.nordier.com (8.8.7/8.6.12) id LAA18560; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 11:20:06 +0200 (SAT) From: Robert Nordier Message-Id: <199812060920.LAA18560@ceia.nordier.com> Subject: Re: New drivers and install floppy space In-Reply-To: <199812060655.WAA02653@dingo.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Dec 5, 98 10:55:36 pm" To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 11:20:02 +0200 (SAT) Cc: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, mike@smith.net.au, wilko@yedi.iaf.nl, wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Smith wrote: > It shouldn't really require MFS_ROOT turned on (the foo_ROOT options > are IMO bogus); it should always be checking for an mfs_root type > object. But no, the mfsroot image should indeed be either a UFS > filesystem or a FAT filesystem (the latter would make adding extra > drivers to the disk easier). > > > Hmmmmm. For that matter, we could make sure that the mfsroot was also > > a bootable floppy image with a /boot/boot.4th file on it which said: > > > > : yell 7 emit ." NO, BOOT THE OTHER FLOPPY, YOU KNOB!" cr ; > > > > yell > > key drop > > reset > > > > Or something to that effect. :-) > > That's an excellent argument for making it a UFS floppy, yes. Either > that, or ask Robert for a bootsector that says the same thing... FWIW, there's existing i386 code to do this in newfs_msdos.c. Just change the message displayed. I can always oblige with a FAT filesystem bootstrap, if we want to use FAT floppies. Because of a lower metadata overhead, FAT could be a lot more space-efficient than UFS. We can lose 90% of UFS's 16K for boot + superblock, for instance. And FAT dirents are only 32 bytes. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message