Subject: Re: new disklabels - part2
To: Leo Weppelman <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/21/1999 10:22:47
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
> 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).
?? :-) The only thing I see needing a change would be disklabel, when it
shows the last 11 partitions. :-)
> > 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?
I don't forsee us ever moving this number again. I think we should get it
right now, and leave it alone.
raw == partition 0 would be fine too. I was just thinking of keeping the
minor #'s the same for the first 8 partitions, but that's not a big deal.