> Once again, look at the code. We do provide that minor number; it's
> the one attached to /dev/xdNc. That partition need not start at
> zero, and it doesn't matter what's in the disklabel in memory or
> on the disk. The start/end data for that partition are ignored.

WHY DIDN'T THIS COME UP SOONER. It would have saved me (and others)
quite a few posts. Hell, I was already proposing that we do this for
'c' and maybe even 'd' !!

There's virtually no indication in the outwardly visible parts of the
system that this convention is silently being enforced.

> You look quite stupid when I explain this to you and you come back
> again without having understood a word of it. I advised you to read
> the code; now please go and do so before you bring this up again.

Source file please. Function or data structure to search for.

If you do not also provide that information, don't expect people to go
off and learn the whole source tree just for you.

People need to learn to give references when they use bits of source code
to make a point. Just like an academic discussion. It ain't that hard.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ best.com