Subject: Re: Thoughts about wedges
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 09/29/1999 11:22:38
>> Admittedly, adding or removing drives is probably rarer than adding
>> or removing partitions. But is it really that much rarer?
> [...zip disk, eg...]
Heh. Good point. Thanks.
>> Another possibility [...]
>> mbr0 at wd0
>> msdosfs0 at mbr0 partition 0
>> bsdlabel0 at mbr0 partition 2
>> ffs0 at bsdlabel0 partition 0
> We could do that. :-) But the whole point of wedges was to get
> partition info out of the kernel. :-) Now we're having to put it in
> the kernel config files. :-(
No no. Just using the autoconf attachment machinery. I don't think
the person who first suggested this was actually proposing that you'd
actually write that in your kernel config; I'm certainly not. But we
already have userland tools that frob kernel device attachments to some
extent (scsictl and I think the PCMCIA stuff come to mind); this would
simply make wedgeconfig another such.
I'm not entirely sure I really like it. I, at least, am still at the
stage of playing with ideas to see what good can be gleaned from them.
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B