Subject: Re: Item of future thought: disklabels
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 07/26/1996 07:48:02
>> I'm not sure whether I'd rather see beffs and leffs (one of which is
>> always identical to the native ffs), or just bsffs which is swapped
>> from the native order.

> Why not just noffs (network order ffs)?  That way you would not need
> to worry about be/le, you just mount it...

Because on a big-endian machine it buys you absolutely nothing.  It may
be fine for data-interchange, but for that we have lots of things (like
tar archives).  It won't do you a bit of good when you have a disk from
an Intel box that's fallen over hard and you want to read it on, say, a
SPARC machine.

Unless, of course, the Intel machine was mounting it with noffs, which
(a) is no help for the existing installed base and (b) wouldn't be done
in general because native-byte-order FFS is bound to be more efficient
than byte-swapped.

					der Mouse
		    01 EE 31 F6 BB 0C 34 36  00 F3 7C 5A C1 A0 67 1D