Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
To: Wolfgang Solfrank <email@example.com>
From: Robert V. Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/01/1998 20:29:56
A bit rearranged and mailed to you. Maybe the rest of
the crowd is getting tired of all this .
Wolfgang Solfrank <email@example.com> writes:
I did get this. Indented below is my previous mail. I think its
subtle and ok. But I agree its what dos does.
> In addition, you still seem to have missed the part where I wrote "...
> during the first time it writes the mbr to disk". Or maybe, I haven't made
> that clear enough? What I meant is, the boot code and partition table are
> initialized on disk, if you instruct fdisk to write the mbr anyway. I.e.,
> if you call fdisk with any of the options -i, -u or -a.
> Actually it will initialize its incore data structures even if it
> doesn't write to disk, so it will tell sysinst that the partition table
> is empty. With sysinst, you then add a NetBSD partition, and when
> sysinst calls fdisk again to write this partition (using the fdisk -u...
> below the fdisk -i you removed), fdisk will initialize the mbr on disk.
It is an extension that I had not appreciated earlier, that fdisk would
install boot code (i.e. fdisk -i), when it was installing mbr
partition records, if the mbr was invalid.
> But that's not really different from what we have already. The old fdisk
> code would do mostly the same (yes, even if _not_ called with the -i option).
> The only difference is that the old code does initialize the partition entry
> 3 as a partition covering the whole disk except the first track, while the
> new code initializes all four partitions to zero.
Your plan does correctly, what the old code tried to do w/o ever messing up
the mbr partition records. I'm arguing for something slightly better?
A menu to tell the user that there is no mbr and ask what to do.