Subject: Re: new disklabels - part2
To: Leo Weppelman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 09/21/1999 13:10:52
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 10:22:47AM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > ?? :-) 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.
My thought here was that we haven't proposed (yet) a way to actually write
one disklabel with more than 22 partitions in it. Thus I don't think
disktab will be a problem - single letters will cover all the partitions
we'd be using a disktab entry to create. :-)
> > 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 ;-))
Oh I'd vote for the raw partition being at one end or the other of the
list; either partition 0 or partition 63. With raw == 0, then partition a
would be minor # 1.