Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:54:30 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, terry@lambert.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fdisk and partition info Message-ID: <199604011954.MAA14025@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199604010340.NAA29080@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Apr 1, 96 01:40:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >The correct soloution involves removing the bad144 code from the > >disk driver itself to divorce it from the disk driver level so > >that it can be applied to things like spanned volumes, etc.. Like > > I did that more than a year ago. UTST. Wow. If this is the case, I will reinstall a WD1007 system with the bad144 code applied on a per slice basis instead of to the BSD partition as a whole, and use the whole disk as one BSD disklabeled area spanning the 1024th cylinder. Of course, this is impossible, since the job can't really be completed in the current device framework, and the bad144 code still relies on a bit in the disklabel to tell it is active on a partition, overall, instead of being on a per slice basis. And the boot code still considers the partition as a whole, using the disklabel flag, so the divorce I was suggesting is incomplete, This is not to say that progress on the journey was not made; only that the journey is incomplete. If I sound rough-shod, well, it's because I prefer to go directly to the final soloution instead of taking intermediate evoloutionary steps. I can proudl;y say that, in this tradition, none of my machines have been purchased with DOS preinstalled when the final goal was running BSD. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604011954.MAA14025>