From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Dec 13 01:34:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA08604 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:34:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp5.portal.net.au [202.12.71.105]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA08580 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:34:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA02140; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:59:18 +1030 (CST) Message-Id: <199712130929.TAA02140@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Mike Smith cc: bgingery@gtcs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: blocksize on devfs entries (and related) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:18:36 +1030." <199712130848.TAA01888@word.smith.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:59:17 +1030 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Replying to myself. *sigh* It's the hair on my palms, I swear. > > 3. If at the controller level it is possible to concatinate > > or RAID join devices, that information needs to be stored > > for the device. If this is intrinsic to the device driver > > or the physical device - no matter. > > This is not useful. An upper layer should not care whether the extent > it is consuming is a concatenation of extents. This is an issue for > management tools, which should have an OOB technique for recovering > structure information. Of course, this is not true in anything other than the naive case. An upper layer may well want to take advantage of, or precautions in light of, the construction of the extent(s) with which it is presented. Sorry about that. mike