Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:18:17 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GEOM architecture and the (lack of) need for foot-shooting Message-ID: <b1fbaa6b2ea41e893ae1f3c94d49c2ee@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20050408055144.GA6147@nagual.pp.ru> References: <21342.1112914675@critter.freebsd.dk> <09c6072206df99be25e345b7e13354f5@xcllnt.net> <20050408050405.GA5203@nagual.pp.ru> <19f3c4e12937f581f7420bc841a11810@xcllnt.net> <20050408055144.GA6147@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:51 PM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> is dropped when the disk disappears. The on-disk data can be modified >> by partitioning tools. The in-core data does not change because of >> that, >> but the in-core data can be brought in sync with the on-disk data by >> some means (sysctl, ioctl or whatever). The in-core data cannot be >> edited >> on its own. > > It bring some problems like illegal on-disk modification synced to > in-core. Q: what would you consider illegal on-disk modifications? > Since on-disk editing is not controlled (and should not be), it > may overlap or be incorrect in some other way. Q: why is on-disk editing not controlled and why shouldn't it be? > But, if you edit in-core > partition instead, as I suggest, you can do all sorts of checking and > safety, easily excluding overlaps, etc. I can't say I buy into that. I don't see how in-core editing can be better checked than on-disk editing. Can you explain? -- 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?b1fbaa6b2ea41e893ae1f3c94d49c2ee>