Re: GEOM architecture and the (lack of) need for foot-shooting

On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Andrey Chernov wrote:

>> I think that having a single view is probably what's biting. If you
>
> Yes. But who speak about single view? If we have in-core and on-disk
> partition separately, we need _two_ independent views, choosed f.e. by
> some option.

Your angle is slightly different from mine. We do share that the on-disk
and in-core data can differ, but you seem to allow editing of the 
in-core
data by partitioning tools, while I don't.

The way I look at it is that the kernel builds the in-core data from
the on-disk data when the disk is first discovered. The in-core data
is dropped when the disk disappears. The on-disk data can be modified
by partitioning tools. The in-core data does not change because of that,
but the in-core data can be brought in sync with the on-disk data by
some means (sysctl, ioctl or whatever). The in-core data cannot be 
edited
on its own. The idea here is that you remain in control while you make
modifications and to allow updating the in-core data in a way that's 
most
suitable for the sysadmin or the tool he/she is using.

I think it's important to have that clear.

-- 
  Marcel Moolenaar         USPA: A-39004          marcel_at_xcllnt.net