Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:20:43 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@haven.freebsd.dk> Cc: Maxim.Sobolev@portaone.com, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] boot0cfg/fdisk issue fix Message-ID: <20050706212043.GA6215@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <8285.1120679020@phk.freebsd.dk> References: <20050706181310.GA5167@ns1.xcllnt.net> <8285.1120679020@phk.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:43:40PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > >A completely different approach that helps to abstract the details > >of the slicer (i.e. MBR, GPT or BSD) is a functional interface. > >Have a device special file for each slicer and implement ioctl(2) on > >them for adding, removing, resizing etc of partitions. That way > >GEOM gets to see requests like: > > "remove slice number 3, please" > > If you want to implement this, don't add bogodevices with magic > ioctls, use the g_ctl API instead, it is designed for this kind > of thing. *snip* > >Potentionally we could end up with a single tool to manipulate any > >and all slicers, provided we define the ioctl interface correctly. > > My original hope was that this tool would be called geom(8) and > be the unified management tool for all GEOM classes, not just > slices. That would be better, yes. Would a slicer-specific API that's implemented in terms of g_ctl be welcome in libgeom? It would help convert the existing tools to use GEOM more directly, which helps the convergence of the functionality into a single tool: geom(8). For geom(8) it would then probably be a class library, right? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050706212043.GA6215>