Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:52:11 +0530 From: Manish Jain <jude.obscure@yandex.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fwd: A request for unnested UFS implementation in MBR Message-ID: <dbf75cb9-6aa4-a609-97cc-55bd5762e593@yandex.com> In-Reply-To: <20180708011444.82511c6a.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <98201d37-2d65-34c6-969e-c9649f1a3ab1@yandex.com> <f57a5540-9736-53bf-5312-166a1b2e23b0@yandex.com> <20180707231908.65a2e973.freebsd@edvax.de> <a09d56e5-38c7-bc52-dc92-49d5956e152d@yandex.com> <20180708001336.4097d20e.freebsd@edvax.de> <6bbfdaad-6872-1a6b-f176-471e57ac8d0a@yandex.com> <20180708004645.5a39c930.freebsd@edvax.de> <939bdcac-d9c3-2863-0e83-e1e87b61ded8@yandex.com> <20180708011444.82511c6a.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/08/18 04:44, Polytropon wrote: > They don't. With GPT, there is no need for BSD labels anymore. All I am saying is exactly the same possibility for MBR. We can create a UFS implementation, perhaps named ufs, that gets recorded directly in MBR table. Right now the implementation is freebsd::freebsd-ufs. If someone could just touch a few things, it improves things for eternity when we do not have bother about the extra layer (BSD). Any extra filesystems the user needs should be found in the EBR, not in the BSD. Why should a PC have multiple nesting schemas ? It only pains the user in the future when the need for the extra nest was only in the past (when there presumably was no EBR nest). Tx MJ
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dbf75cb9-6aa4-a609-97cc-55bd5762e593>