boot0cfg -s vs. GEOM_PART_*?

[Ulf Lilleengen]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:00:43PM +0000, Ulf Lilleengen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:19:55PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > 
> > On Feb 17, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > 
> > > In message <E842D9CC-DEA8-4198-825F-46ED29437AE0 at mac.com>, Marcel  
> > > Moolenaar wri
> > > tes:
> > >
> > >>> In message <D29A6039-5105-49CB-B613-DD561CDD1A89 at mac.com>, Marcel
> > >>> Moolenaar wri
> > >>> tes:
> > >>>
> > >>>> For boot0cfg this is probably acceptable, because
> > >>>> it only operates on MBRs. But as a generic solution
> > >>>> this won't work.
> > >>>
> > >>> Then pick up the bootcode via ioctls, it does not belong
> > >>> in the confxml sysctl.
> > >>
> > >> On what grounds doesn't it belong in the confxml?
> > >
> > > Because the way we (currently) implement confxml and the uses it is
> > > put to would generally be greatly inconvenienced if you have to  
> > > include
> > > 8KB of hexdump data in the xml stream.
> > >
> > >> And how do these not apply to ioctls?
> > >
> > > ioctls was designed and built to move binary blobs across the
> > > userland/kernel barrier to and from I/O devices.
> > 
> 
> How about the way that was done in GEOM_MBR? Defining a verb like "write
> MBR", and supply the mbr as a parameter with gctl? (Currently used by
> boot0cfg).
Ah, like phk@ mentioned in an older reply :)

-- 
Ulf Lilleengen