Subject: Re: new kpi proposal, sysdisk(9)
To: None <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 12/31/2006 21:48:51
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> alright, so I'll go on with the diff I posted, perhaps with an
> >> additional parameter (const char *)
> > do you mean to use ioctl to implement sysdisk(9)?
> no, the way I understood it is that the ioctl stuff is for driver code;
> sysdisk(9) is unrelated.
i don't understand how it can be unrelated to driver stuff,
which knows overlapped partitions, etc.
> sysdisk(9) allows a subsystem that wants to
> protect itself to do so, while the disk_ioctl() stuff is to (somewhat)
> help driver authors.
what will be added to disk_ioctl?
> >> and/or similar set of routines that
> >> take a dev_t.
> > can you explain?
> yah, sysdisk(9) take struct vnode *, I thought about adding routines
> that dev_t (and use vfinddev() to make it a struct vnode * internally).