> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> 
> > do you mean you are going to commit your initial patch,
> > ignoring complicated things like partitions,
> > "layered" devices like raidframe, etc?
> 
> sysdisk(9) does not know about partitions. it knows about physical
> disks.

it should know them, IMO.

> I will say it again: it is what allows a subsystem to say "this
> physical disk is in use by me, and it is so critical that I don't even
> trust you to do the handling of wedges/partitions/labels/whatever
> correctly, and would rather deny all raw access to it".

i agree it's a valid policy, yes.
but it belongs to each secmodels or such, not here.

> > honestly, i think it's a bad time to implement things like this.
> > once we finished the transition to wedges, this kind of things should be
> > more straightforward to do...
> 
> first let's put a reasonable deadline on when it should be finished.
> 
> -e.

i'm not requesting you to stop your development until wedge is finished.
i'm merely saying it would be easier.

YAMAMOTO Takashi