Subject: Re: new kpi proposal, sysdisk(9)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/08/2007 09:43:18
--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:06:11PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 03:36:14PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>=20
> i'm not suggesting to support sub-partitions etc at all.
> byte range tracking merely happened to be the easiest way for me to track
> usages of wedges and traditional partitions in a unified manner.

Ok.

Actually, for what you describe, a byte range may be the best for now.

One assumption I had was that if you were using wedges, we locked you out=
=20
of partitions, and likewise partitions locked out wedges. I now realize=20
that's not necessarily true. I'm not sure which is better, what you=20
describe or somehow making that enforcement (neither both paritions and=20
wedges).

> > So we're talking about a lot of complexity that I don't think will ever=
=20
> > get used. I say we leave it out and just go with partitions. Partitions=
=20
> > that don't move around.
>=20
> i'm not sure what complexity you are talking about.
> a range (two uint64_t) vs a partition number (int)?
> if you use a partition number, how do you represent users of wedges?

I meant sub-partitions. Since you don't intend to support them, it's no=20
longer an issue. Sorry. :-)

> or are you saying what elad's "sysdisk" does is enough?
> it's flawed IMO, given that it lacks a way for drivers like raidframe
> to propagate usage info to underlying disks.

I thought his sysdisk() did enough? Well, he hadn't coded the range=20
checking, but in principle, it seems close. I'm confused. How would it not=
=20
permit raidframe from passing usage info to underlying disks?

Take care,

Bill

--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFFooK2Wz+3JHUci9cRAj3FAJ9n/yQjmQcqNiLdJ+3pmFifnnCC5gCgiui8
+qwdmJ5glY8OVg5FzhgFAvA=
=/Euw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz--