Subject: Re: new disklabels - part2
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Leo Weppelman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/21/1999 22:00:39
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 10:22:47AM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 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. :-)
Try 'man disktab', look at getdiskbyname(). This is a maze of twisting
passages.... I think there are more places in the code that assume the
current single letter partition nameing sceme than you probably think.
> > > 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.
I tend to agree from our current situation. But I keep remembering the
'64KB is enough' phrase ;-)
> 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.
We can also stick with "raw == partition 2" I don't have much trouble with
that either. But when we are moving it, I'll vote for 0 ;-))