Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:54:52 -0700
From:      Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>
To:        "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>
Cc:        Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org>,  FreeBSD Current Mailing List <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: How do GEOM_PART_* options configure geom_part_* modules??
Message-ID:  <CAN6yY1v=HzDZywjqBQteRK-wS79m7XZYYy%2BpBTb5Qed9sxiKUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201709290109.v8T19oMO028898@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
References:  <CANCZdfpQGkxZFqU45T0mzXVtYQK7s2p-%2BZe2KUStGARUdB=%2BQw@mail.gmail.com> <201709290109.v8T19oMO028898@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Rodney W. Grimes <
freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:

> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I created a new kernel config file from scratch, wondered what the
> > >> > GEOM_PART_MBR option and friends were doing, search for them, didn't
> > >> find
> > >> > them in the tree, and deleted them from my config. But... de
> resulting
> > >> disk
> > >> > image didn't boot, because of the fact that it didn't recognise the
> MBR
> > >> > partitions (it only had a single diskid entry on the mount-root
> prompt).
> > >> >
> > >> > Can anyone explain to me how these kernel options work, as in: they
> are
> > >> > defined in kernel configs and as a consequence in opt_geom.h, but
> how
> > >> are
> > >> > they actually used to select which geom_part_* modules/kernel parts
> to
> > >> > build? I thought these options were translated to stuff that cpp
> would
> > >> use,
> > >> > but there are not uses of for example GEOM_PART_MBR anywhere for
> > >> example!
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The module always build them because they are listed in the module's
> > >> > Makefile.
> > >> >
> > >> > The kernel only sometimes does. Here's the key lines from
> conf/files:
> > >> > files:geom/geom_bsd_enc.c optional geom_bsd | geom_part_bsd
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_apm.c optional geom_part_apm
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_bsd.c optional geom_part_bsd
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_bsd64.c optional geom_part_bsd64
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_ebr.c optional geom_part_ebr
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_gpt.c optional geom_part_gpt
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_ldm.c optional geom_part_ldm
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_mbr.c optional geom_part_mbr
> > >> > files:geom/part/g_part_vtoc8.c optional geom_part_vtoc8
> > >> >
> > >> > which turn on/off which files get included. config "helpfully"
> converts
> > >> the
> > >> > upper case options to lower case for this.
> > >> >
> > >> > Warner
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > *slaps forehead* Goose chase!
> > >> >
> > >> > I actually knew that... and, at the time, thought it was weird
> > >> behaviour.
> > >> > ''grep" would not have failed me if those options would be uppercase
> > >> there
> > >> > ...
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I've been nibbled to death by these geese often enough to have a
> PTSD-like
> > >> reaction when someone mentions it and habitually add -i to my greps...
> > >>
> > >> Warner
> > >
> > >
> > > This horrid POLA violation seems to have been in FreeBSD configuration
> > > since at least 3.0 and probably goes back to the creation of the
> > > configuration process.
> > >
> > > Any idea why such a horrible POLA was ever introduced? Seems like an
> > > obviously bad idea in an OS that is ALMOST always case sensitive.
> > >
> >
> > It's received code from the old 4.3 BSD config program (or maybe the
> net-2
> > config program).
>
> We had best not have any code direct from 4.3 or net-2, it should be from
> 4.4BSDLite, any code prior to that is subject of the lawsuit.
>
>
> --
> Rod Grimes
> rgrimes@freebsd.org
>

I believe any code in 4.3 BSD that was developed by CSRG was not subject of
the suit. Copyright on that code by the Regents of UC, not AT&T. (So was
any code I wrote.) Many utilities were from v8 or descended from AT&T code,
but a great deal was not. It was what UC was getting paid for.

My first Unix experience was with 4.2 BSD and I was not concerned with
copyrights as I was working for  UC (at least my paychecks said so) and we
had an AT&T license for Unix, so it was simply not an issue. The system was
a VAX-11/750 at the UC-Davis Department of Applied Science located at
Lawrence Livermore Lab.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1v=HzDZywjqBQteRK-wS79m7XZYYy%2BpBTb5Qed9sxiKUQ>