--JSkcQAAxhB1h8DcT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:22:10PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 05:30:31PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> >=20
> > On Sep 23, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >=20
> > >Oh, I thought wedges had a starting offset which was relative to the
> > >underlying device.
> >=20
> > Wedge offsets are relative to their parent, which in this case is the=
=20
> > underlying disk device (since I have explicitly chosen to disallow=20
> > wedges-on-wedges, for now).
>=20
> How about we make wedge offsets relative to the root disk, and have wedge=
s=20
> know both who their parent wedge (if any) is and who their device is? If=
=20
> we leave sc_parent as the parent _disk_, then it should all work. Well, I=
=20
> think dkstrategy() and dkstart() would need no changing. The only change=
=20
> would be the comment for sc_offset would need to change to indicate that=
=20
> the offset's relative to the device.
>=20
> I even think the wedge overlap code will work right. The only thing that=
=20
> might need work would be code to make sure a wedge is within its parent,=
=20
> which would need to take into account a parental sc_offset value.

I'm wrong about this. The loop to look for overlaps would need to be
changed a little. &pdk->dk_wedges would need to be either the parent
disks's wedges (for a top-level wedge) or the parent wedge's child wedges
(for a subwedge). The loop still is fine, we just have to be particular
about what we look at.

Take care,

Bill

--JSkcQAAxhB1h8DcT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFBVMx+Wz+3JHUci9cRAlz8AJ9OI54Nz0soJP8pOuYurhFO8SMZVwCfTlNd
hhjPemP8UCZYxH7Vu+oesSc=
=ygGX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--JSkcQAAxhB1h8DcT--