Subject: Re: new disklabels - part2
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Leo Weppelman <email@example.com>
Date: 09/21/1999 10:06:53
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 02:44:36PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Greywolf wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
> > # On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 12:48:53PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > # > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
> > # > >
> > # > > * The basis of the generic-label is the current dislabel definition
> > # > > (as defined in 'include/disklabel.h'). The additions are:
> > # > > - 52 (2*26 == [a-zA-Z]) partitions (MAX_GENERIC_PARTITIONS)
> > # >
> > # > I'd vote for 64 partitions, and shoving the "whole disk" one at #63. For
> > # > now, ports could keep shoving a "whole disk" partition at #2 or #3 (c or
> > # > d).
> > #
> > # I started out with the 64 idea myself until I tried to think up the name
> > # of partitions above 52 ;-) So, do you have a suggestion?
I should have said: 'a suggestion that would not need a massive rewrite of
all userland applications interpreting disknames'... I should have known that
omitting this would unleash massive creativity ;-) So, for the first round
of disklabel changes, I will bump the number of partitions to 64 and leave
the new decoding of the partition namespace to a separate project (rendering
the last 11 partitions useless for the moment).
> I'd vote for X Y Z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai "" for partiton 49 -> 63.
My suggestion for the raw-device would be partition zero. Otherwise, what
are you planning to do when we bump to, say, 128 partitions? Move it again?