At the moment, there is no definite objection to the patch. I would
like to commit it in this weekend. Since this option is potentially
dangerous, as pointed out by Michael, it will be enabled only for
ALL on amd64 and i386, and commented out for other kernel
configuration files by default.
On 2017/02/16 5:47, Michael van Elst wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:27:16AM +, David Brownlee wrote:
On 12 February 2017 at 11:57, Rin Okuyama wrote:
Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4).
It is exactly what I need! It is more
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:27:16AM +, David Brownlee wrote:
> On 12 February 2017 at 11:57, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> > Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4).
> > It is exactly what I need! It is more portable than my patch.
> > I withdraw the
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:10:11PM -0500, Mouse wrote:
> > [B]ased on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got
> > fixed), I wouldn't rely on FFS_EI until someone gives it a good
> > thorough audit, preferably with some kind of automated checking tool.
>
> What sort of
On 12 February 2017 at 11:57, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4).
> It is exactly what I need! It is more portable than my patch.
> I withdraw the patch and the PR.
I think that DISKLABEL_EI would still be a good idea -
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 04:10:11PM -0500, Mouse wrote:
> > [B]ased on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got
> > fixed), I wouldn't rely on FFS_EI until someone gives it a good
> > thorough audit, preferably with some kind of automated checking tool.
>
> What sort of things?
> [B]ased on things I saw when hacking lfs last year (all of which got
> fixed), I wouldn't rely on FFS_EI until someone gives it a good
> thorough audit, preferably with some kind of automated checking tool.
What sort of things? (If you care to say, of course.) I've been using
FFS_EI
Michael, Martin, thank you for letting me know about wedge(4).
It is exactly what I need! It is more portable than my patch.
I withdraw the patch and the PR.
Thanks,
rin
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:23:52AM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
> Currently, we have FFS_EI and LFS_EI kernel options, that enable us to
> mount UFS partitions written in the different byte order. However,
> unfortunately, the system does not recognize disklabels written in the
> different byte
dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) writes:
>On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:06:35AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> > 5. Does the current FFS_EI allow for creation of opposite-endian
> >file systems? I don't see any endian option for newfs(8).
>Not that I know of. Also, based on things I saw
p...@whooppee.com (Paul Goyette) writes:
>4. Where on the physical device is the wedge configuration saved,
>anyway?)
There is no special wedge configuration on the disk. Wedges are
generated from labels. There is code to handle GPT, MBR and BSD disklabel,
the latter is not configured in
rokuy...@rk.phys.keio.ac.jp (Rin Okuyama) writes:
>The patch attached to tech-kern/51208 adds DISKLABEL_EI option for ports
>using MBR. By this option, the system can mount the disk (image) written
>in the different byte order. This should be useful for cross building.
>For bi-endian
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:06:35AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> 5. Does the current FFS_EI allow for creation of opposite-endian
>file systems? I don't see any endian option for newfs(8).
Not that I know of. Also, based on things I saw when hacking lfs last
year (all of which got fixed), I
Thank you very much for your comments.
On 2017/02/12 12:06, Paul Goyette wrote:
I don't really have any objections, but I would like to clarify the scope of
what is being proposed.
1. Does this allow only processing of disk labels that are (a) already
written in opposite-endian format? Or
Hi,
I'd like to add DISKLABEL_EI kernel option, cf tech-kern/51208:
http://gnats.netbsd.org/51208
Currently, we have FFS_EI and LFS_EI kernel options, that enable us to
mount UFS partitions written in the different byte order. However,
unfortunately, the system does not recognize disklabels
15 matches
Mail list logo