Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
From the next branch on -current, it is my intent to not install
BSD labels anymore, but switch to GPT instead, (possibly encapsulated
in an BSD MBR slice for legacy systems).
Do you mean this GPT:
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/GPT_FAQ.asp
or are you s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ju
lian Elischer writes:
>isn't it about time we got away from puting the bootblocks in a
>filesystem partition?
I actually reached that conclusion back when we realized that the UFS2
bootblocks did not fit the 8k magic zone.
>From the next branch on -current, it
Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:16:51 -0800
> To: Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Manfred Antar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Wats
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kirk McKusick wr
ites:
>You will have to ask Puol-Henning Kamp, but I do not believe that
>he has yet put together a bootstrap for the i386 platform that can
>boot from a UFS2 filesystem. As such, I believe that you are
>required to have a UFS1 root on the i386 at
Kirk McKusick wrote:
> Ah
> No wonder, I tried editing the /sys/boot/i386/boot2/Makefile
> to enable UFS2 bootblock but then disklabel complained that
> boot2 was too big. I will have to revert to UFS1
> Thanks
> Manfred
>
> You have hit upon the exa
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:16:51 -0800
To: Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Manfred Antar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAI
At 11:11 PM 11/29/2002 -0800, Kirk McKusick wrote:
>You will have to ask Puol-Henning Kamp, but I do not believe that
>he has yet put together a bootstrap for the i386 platform that can
>boot from a UFS2 filesystem. As such, I believe that you are
>required to have a UFS1 root on the i386 at this
correct me if I am incorrect
on this point.
Kirk McKusick
=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:57:12 -0800
To: Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Manfred Antar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format
Cc: Robert Watson <[
At 09:11 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, Kirk McKusick wrote:
>On Tuesday Nov 26th I plan to make an update to the UFS2
>superblock. It will not affect UFS1 filesystems so should
>be generally transparent to most -current users. For those
>using UFS2 filesystems, the new kernel will update the
>superblock to
,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match
>
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
>
> > Some of these fields could usefully be made
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 01:08:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Update to UFS2
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kirk McKusick wr
ites:
>Some of these fields could usefully be made unsigned others not
>(for example fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes).
Kirk, when you have a patch, mail it to me and I'll let FlexeLint
loose on it. Currently it whines loudly and voluminously
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> Some of these fields could usefully be made unsigned others not
> (for example fs_pendingblocks and fs_pendinginodes). So just
> going through and making everything unsigned is not the right
> approach. I will make a pass through and consider changing
IL PROTECTED], Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Update to UFS2 Superblock Format
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match
I do have one question re: UFS2, not specifically about this change
however..
I notice that the fields of the d
I do have one question re: UFS2, not specifically about this change
however..
I notice that the fields of the disk structure are signed.
Wouldn;t it make more sence at this early stage to declare them as
unsigned?
For example
take this snippet from struct fs
int64_t fs_size;
On Tuesday Nov 26th I plan to make an update to the UFS2
superblock. It will not affect UFS1 filesystems so should
be generally transparent to most -current users. For those
using UFS2 filesystems, the new kernel will update the
superblock to the new format the first time that your UFS2
filesystem
16 matches
Mail list logo
