Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a difference though as far as I can tell. Sometimes on Solaris we
> > have p? for fdisk partitioning included and sometimes we don't; similarly
> > we
> > sometimes don't have t? for target. Personally I'd prefer us to be
> > consistent always even if it leads to names like /dev/dsk/c0t0d0p0s0 if we
> > are talking about the first Solaris VTOC slice c0t0d0 for the whole disk
> > c0t0d0p0 for the whole Solaris VTOC.
>
> I second the call for consistency, but think that this means dumping
> partitions/slices from the actual device name. A disk is a disk - one unit
> of storage. How it is subdivided and how/whether the subdivisions are made
> available as device nodes should not be the worry of the disk driver, but
> rather that of an independent layer. The way it is now may have a history
> but that doesn't make it less confusing to me :(
Thank you for posting this!
The idea of having a separate partitioning layer is the only way to fix the
various problems caused by the hacks in e.g. pcfs.
The main problem I see with this idea is that it may cause to throw parts
of the old naming scheme away.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
