Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 17:28:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: fredriks@mcs.com (Lars Fredriksen) Cc: dufault@hda.com, bde@zeta.org.au, hackers@FreeBSD.org, julian@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SLICES and bits in the device numbers Message-ID: <199505060028.RAA04681@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <m0s7Q1e-0003kwC@mercury.mcs.com> from "Lars Fredriksen" at May 5, 95 11:14:46 am
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > Couldn't we use the "bus" device for all lowlevel stuff like formatting, > tuning, tape fixing etc? What I mean is that we open /dev/scsi0 and > blast the scsi request straight in that way. It does mean some code > duplication between the different drivers and the "control" program, > but if we are running out of bits, it might be worth it. but you couldn't blast a format at sd0 but at sb0t0l0 or whatever, which might be easier to get wrong? my own suggestion is that slice1 (presently whole disk slice) be divided into a couple of sub-devices.. 0: whole disk 1: MBR block (if it exists) 2: control (ioctl only) device the st driver already has a control device.. What a control device actually means is dependent on the kind of device, (setting modes permanently on tapes is one example) so I see no reason to not make it's definition device specific, unless you want to make teh SCSI code define this.. (which may not be what we want) julianhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199505060028.RAA04681>