Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Gandhi woulda smacked you <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/03/1998 23:12:11
On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, Greg A. Woods wrote:
* Not to mention that it would also fix the strange semantics of reading
* and writing disk labels. I.e. one would always be able to write a label
* to the raw disk, and then instead of writing to the incore copy you'd
* just tell the kernel to read it from the disk again. Then you'd be 100%
* certain that everything was in sync and there'd be absolutely no way of
* getting it out of sync.
That's a matter of semantics in itself and independent of the 'c'/'d'
stuff, which, again, is not in the driver, but in the partition table.
Its roots are strictly in userland.
But yeah, it would keep things from getting out of sync.
* Well, you still need to index the partitions with something, and letters
* are good because there's at least 52 to play with.
Yes, but the disklabel will only accommodate, what, twenty-two of them.
Rewriting the disklabel size would be a major hassle.
* However using the current FS_* flags a lot more would be good. It would
* also be good to add a flag that says "read-only" which would be enforced
* at the driver layer. (I suspect you can't do that now because if you
* did you'd hose yourself and have to reformat if you made the 'c' (or
* 'd') partition read-only.)
Nah, not really. The theory behind something like disks is that if you
can make it read-only, you can also make it read-write -- at least,
that's how it'd be done in an intelligent manner.
But there again, the FS_* flags would be cool. For some reason, I thought
such a thing existed.
Friends don't let friends use Microsoft.