Hi,
> > I cannot imagine a use case for creating invalid disklabels.
>
> I can, barely - but your idea of "invalid" is, apparently,
> substantially more inclusive than mine, and I have real uses for
> disklabels you (appear to) consider invalid.
uhm, ok, I didn't consider these use cases. It makes disklabel indeed a very
mighty tool, but I still dislike the approach to have a tool digging in the
guts of the system, but doing only the most necessary integrity checks.
> > Plus, one thing I wondered about: Is there a clean way to determine
> > the "mother" partition (i.e. c or d)?
>
> If you mean RAW_PART, the kern.rawpartition sysctl is what you want.
> If you mean the equivalent of c on i386 ("the NetBSD MBR partition"),
> it doesn't exist at all on many ports, so, no, there isn't. If you
> mean something else, then I think you'd need to explain in somewhat
> more detail what you mean by `the "mother" partition'.
kern.rawpartition is exactly what I've been searching for, thank you!
Imho the current way of having to deal with an editor and a calculator, or
the interactive mode and eventually creating an invalid label without further
warning is imho somewhat... unintuitive.
Btw, what do you think about alignment support for disklabel (useful only for
shell or interactive mode)? With more and more 4K disks and SSDs, that would
be useful imho.
Regards, Julian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature