Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:17:23 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: phk@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>, <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: buildworld trouble: multiple struct dos_partition. Message-ID: <20030104043358.K4900-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <26833.1041612576@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 phk@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > In message <20030104.011305.74720364.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>, Takahashi Yoshihiro > writes: > >In article <10926.1041590588@critter.freebsd.dk> > >Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org> writes: > > > >> I think you need to either #ifdef something here (and there may be > >> more some similar code in places like truss or the debugger) or > >> alternatively rename the structure to "pc98_partition" or similar. > > > >I think that the name "dos_partition" is not suitable for both i386 > >and pc98. I wonder what does "dos" mean here. For example, it should > >be renamed to "mbr_partition" for i386 and "pc98_partition" for pc98, > >respectively. > > You are correct in principle. "pc98_partition" is OK, but "mbr_partition" is bogus since partition tables are not restricted to the MBR -- there is one in every extended partition. <sys/diskpc98.h> is similarly OK and <sys/diskmbr.h> is similarly bogus. "at386" would be a better prefix/suffix than "mbr" for the non-pc98 pc's. It is used for the main bus space header. The normal prefix for "partition table" seems to be "" according to google. FreeBSD has "dos_partition" and NetBSD has "mbr_partition". Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030104043358.K4900-100000>