Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: John Nemeth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/20/1998 04:16:04
On Oct 19, 11:10pm, der Mouse wrote:
} >> If devfs is to be device-independent [...], where [do] disk
} >> partitions fit into it? The autoconfig code knows nothing about
} >> them, and I am inclined to say it probably shouldn't.
} > It could - go look at the partition table thread if you didn't see
} > what I suggested there.
} What I recall seeing there works well only when disklabels don't change
} at run-time. Imagine ejecting a zip disk with am MBR partition table
} on it and popping in one with a NetBSD label - you have to detach the
} "fdisk* at sd?" attachments corresponding to it and create "dk* at sd?"
} attachments for the new disk.
Yikes, very good point. I've been following this thread and up
until now I've been favouring the autoconf idea because it just seemed
cleaner to me; but, this does seem to be a bit of a fatal flaw. So,
now we're down to the labelfs idea, possibly with some refinements,
and/or Charle's slices proposal that he made quite some time ago.
} >> Given such a labelfs, then the partition trouble in devfs magically
} >> evaporates, since all the device node will be is a single raw disk
} >> device - the partition devices will arise from labelfs mounts.
} > Or you could build some or all of the same functionality into devfs.
} Well, sure, but then you can't partition your disks without using
} devfs, and some people don't like devfs but do want partitions.
Yeah, like me.
}-- End of excerpt from der Mouse