Bakul Shah wrote:
phk writes:
You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such
historically interesting decisions.
I am aware of the technical arguments discussed via -arch,
-current -hackers. I just don't agree with them (seems
like most hackers who are afraid to cross
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bakul Shah writes:
How hard would it be to bring back block devices without GEOM?
Not at all hard, pretty trivial in fact.
The easiest way is to restore the old code and use a minor number hack or
ioctl to enable it.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bakul Shah writes:
Oh well.
I am not going to argue about this over and over and over
again.
Thankyou, a very wise decision sir!
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD
In message p05111710b9c1484025de@[128.113.24.47], Garance A Drosihn writes:
I also have a partition with freebsd-current from two or three days
ago, and all the latest versions of the ports. Every time I try to
start vmware2 on the newer system, the hardware dies. Sometimes it
automatically
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:04:04AM +0100, Ian Dowse wrote:
See the patch I posted in:
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=0+6285+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-emulation/20020908.freebsd-emulation
There may still be further issues, but it allowed me to use vmware2
on a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Santcroos writes:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:04:04AM +0100, Ian Dowse wrote:
There may still be further issues, but it allowed me to use vmware2
on a current from a week or two ago.
That's only for virtual disks, and that is not where the problem is (was).
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Mark Santcroos wrote:
I have an almost-ready patch that implements linux_read() syscall. This
will check if we are reading from a raw disk and in that case it will
enlarge the read() to the next sector boundary. I have it working in the
kernel but I have problems
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:50:45PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
Unbreaking block devices would be a better solution. Without buffering,
reads of raw disks using an unbuffered linux_read() might be sector size
times slower than they should be.
You are right. The quick and dirty hack I had in
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Santcroos writes:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:50:45PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
Unbreaking block devices would be a better solution. Without buffering,
reads of raw disks using an unbuffered linux_read() might be sector size
times slower than they should be.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Santcroos writes:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:50:45PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
Unbreaking block devices would be a better solution. Without buffering,
...
What was the reason for the removal of block devices
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Evans writes:
If a buffered access-mode on block devices is desired, it should
be implemented either as an ioctl controllable feature, or as
a GEOM module. The latter is probably by far the easiest way.
It was desired, and was sort of promised.
And we're
Ian Dowse wrote:
In message p05111710b9c1484025de@[128.113.24.47], Garance A Drosihn writes:
I also have a partition with freebsd-current from two or three days
ago, and all the latest versions of the ports. Every time I try to
start vmware2 on the newer system, the hardware dies.
It was desired, and was sort of promised.
I never understood why removal of block devices was allowed
in the first place. phk's reasons don't seem strong enough
to any unix wizard I have talked to. Did the majority of the
core really think the change was warranted? Removing
compatibility
At 10:11 AM +0200 10/3/02, Mark Santcroos wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:04:04AM +0100, Ian Dowse wrote:
See the patch I posted in:
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=0+6285+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-emulation/20020908.freebsd-emulation
There may still be
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:37:07AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
Is there a write up somewhere on what GEOM is and its
benefits? I'd hate to see it become the default without
understanding it (and no, reading source code doesn't do it).
Bakul,
there's been ample discussion of what GEOM is in
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bakul Shah writes:
I never understood why removal of block devices was allowed
in the first place.
You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such
historically interesting decisions.
You are not welcome to build another bikeshed over it.
How hard
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
It was desired, and was sort of promised.
I never understood why removal of block devices was allowed
in the first place. phk's reasons don't seem strong enough
to any unix wizard I have talked to. Did the majority of the
core really think the
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:57:56PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bruce Evans writes:
If a buffered access-mode on block devices is desired, it should
be implemented either as an ioctl controllable feature, or as
a GEOM module. The latter is probably by
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:53:52AM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote:
So 'ignoring' the historic facts, and assuming that we just want block
devices, we can do such a thing in GEOM in the future?
Is this something you will be doing yourself Poul, or is it just that you
are saying that it is
phk writes:
You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such
historically interesting decisions.
I am aware of the technical arguments discussed via -arch,
-current -hackers. I just don't agree with them (seems
like most hackers who are afraid to cross you).
You are not welcome
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
I thought that we hacked around this in the linuxulator 18 months ago
by transparently converting block calls into character calls behind the
scenes. Either this has been removed or something else is wrong.
This isn't the case
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:47:33AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
I thought that we hacked around this in the linuxulator 18 months ago
by transparently converting block calls into character calls behind the
scenes. Either
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:47:33AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
I thought that we hacked around this in the linuxulator 18 months ago
by transparently
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Josef Karthauser wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:47:33AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
I thought that we hacked around this in
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:50:36PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote:
It took a while to find, but this is the hack I was referring to:
Take a look at /sys/compat/linux/linux_stats.c,
Thanks for taking the effort for looking this up.
However, the function in question - newstat_copyout - is not
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:35:43PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
Take a look at /sys/compat/linux/linux_stats.c,
revision 1.29
date: 2001/01/14 23:33:50; author: joe; state: Exp; lines: +18 -11
Instead of hard coding the major numbers for IDE and SCSI disks
look
Vmware2 stopped running from both md and ad devices. Virtual disks still
work. It is caused by a read that is not on sector boundary.
Should a program be able to read non-sector sized chunks from a raw disk
yes or no? What is the desired behaviour?
The fact that this did work, was it a bug or
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:41:44PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The fact that this did work, was it a bug or did this come out due to some
other change. The stacktrace from read(2) is below.
This hasn't worked for a long time in -current.
Long as in 6 months?
By looking at the code
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Santcroos writes:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:41:44PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The fact that this did work, was it a bug or did this come out due to some
other change. The stacktrace from read(2) is below.
This hasn't worked for a long time in
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:52:17PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote:
[freebsd-emulation@ bcc'ed]
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:47:48PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote:
A fact is that vmware did work up until a few months. I didn't do a binary
search yet. That is last resort...
Anyone running a
vmware used the blocking (b devices) interface to disks that do
blocking for you.
Some well meaning but misguided individuals removed block devices
without providing an alernate way of doing this. It should be possible
to do the equivalent of a vn device that accepts misalligned
accesses and
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:29:12AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
vmware used the blocking (b devices) interface to disks that do
blocking for you.
Some well meaning but misguided individuals removed block devices
without providing an alernate way of doing this. It should be possible
to do
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:29:12AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
vmware used the blocking (b devices) interface to disks that do
blocking for you.
Some well meaning but misguided individuals removed block devices
without providing an alernate way of doing this. It should be possible
to do
33 matches
Mail list logo
