Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:39:48 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mdconfig config file (was: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERI C) Message-ID: <14971.46532.626840.235620@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20010203053832.7DE793E02@bazooka.unixfreak.org> References: <mwm@mired.org> <14971.36306.550056.3968@guru.mired.org> <20010203053832.7DE793E02@bazooka.unixfreak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> types: > > The only thing that's really painful in this process (at least now > > that the hard work has been done) newfs. This suggests that, instead > > of a new program, making newfs do duty as mount_md - similar to the > > way it does mount_mfs now - might be the way to do it. > Personally, I don't like how mount_mfs is implemented now. Perhaps > there was good reason for doing it this way, but I don't like it. It > isn't even a separate subroutine within newfs, it is just kind of > stuck in the middle. In fact, I think all of newfs(8) is ugly; > anything that has a 500-line subroutine is. Then again, many may not > agree. Looking at all the functionality needed, I think it was becase someone wanted to avoid exec'ing programs, and putting it all in newfs caused the least code duplication. Of course, if you rewrite newfs to replace mount_mfs with mount_md, you could rewrite that subroutine :-). BTW, there was a request earlier that whatever we do not copy the bogus fstab entries for mount_mfs - most notably the device name. I thought I saw a suggestion that it needs to be /dev/md[#], where just /dev/md would mean to use the MD_AUTOUNIT functionality; /dev/md# would mean use unit #. Since it pretty much always mounts ons c, allowing /dev/md#c probably wouldn't hurt. If you really want backwards compatability (why? I'll change the fstab entry), how about having it check for mount_mfs to mean "AUTO_UNIT, ignore device" and mount_md to use the above? > > for one, would like to be able to enable soft updates on a file system > > when it's created. > > There's a good idea! I would too! So, to bring us one step closer to > what we'd like to be able to do, attached is a patch which adds a -g > option to newfs which will enable softupdates (I'd use -n for > consistency with tunefs, but it's taken). I'd appreciate if someone > would test it, but tred lightly; there's no guarnatee that it doesn't > do something weird like disable the "write to permanent media" feature > or something (I'm saying this because I set the default 'flags' to 0, > and I don't know if that's what it should be). Well, I just formated a disk with it, and copied a couple of hundred megabytes to it, then compared them to the original. tunefs seems happy with what you wrote. Looks good to me. Thanx, <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14971.46532.626840.235620>