Subject: Re: [bsd] Re: V2 RC2 shows and uses wrong partition table entry
From: thilo <jeremias_IGNORE_THIS@optushome.com.au>
Date: 10/13/2004 08:07:16
I understand the "hitorical" use of the table,
but it is working in the 1.6.0
total sectors: 26704944
headswitch: 0 # microseconds
track-to-track seek: 0 # microseconds
# size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg/sgs]
a: 10239453 16465491 4.2BSD 1024 8192 93 # (Cyl. 16334*-
b: 524288 16065 swap # (Cyl. 15*- 536*)
c: 15925138 540353 4.2BSD 4096 32768 1184 # (Cyl. 536*-
d: 26704944 0 unused 0 0 # (Cyl. 0 -
f: 16002 63 Linux Ext2 0 0 # (Cyl. 0*- 15*)
This is what I did
and after booting into 2.0
wd0c shows and mounts as wd0a (wd0a is still the same as before)
So to me it looks like disklabel/the OS does not READ the partition table,
I believe this would be just a table on the disk....
So does this mean 2.0 ignores the table ?
Shall I hand patch the table for 2.0 ?
scares me a bit,
I definetly do a backup firt :-)
>[Thus spake Sascha Retzki ("SR: ") 2:28pm...]
>SR: From: Sascha Retzki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>SR: On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:07:23PM +1000, thilo wrote:
>SR: > Greetings folks,
>SR: > I just build the wholes release on a 120Mhz box (about 56hours),
>SR: wow :)
>SR: > but the new kernel treated wd0c like an mirror of wd0a.
>SR: > disklabel actually showed they where in the same sectors....
>SR: wdNc is "the whole NetBSD" partition/disklabel or a pointer to the first,
>SR: I don't recall for sure.
>SR: Just sounds like the new one works as aspected, at least to me.
>the 'c' partition is the whole NetBSD partition. It almost always starts
>at the same place as the first usable partition (usually 'a'). compare
>'d', which is the Whole Damn Disk, with a 0-byte offset.
>[most other platforms don't use 'd' in this manner and just use 'c' to
>mean 'whole disk', starting at 0. you can thank the whole inhel/bios/MBR
>idiotsyncrasy for this discrepancy.]
>912559 12648430 5UCK5 R0CK5.