Strahil Nikolov <hunter86...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On April 25, 2020 4:09:53 AM GMT+03:00, Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> > wrote: > >Allan Streib <astr...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > > >> Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> writes: > >> > >> > OpenBSD has apparently become popular amongst people who can't > >think > >> > and connect "real world constraints" and "reality" with "no > >alternative > >> > decision was possible". This is very common amongst people who > >won't > >> > lift their finger. > >> > >> I'm not the one complaining about the 16 partition limit, and I'm not > >> asking for anything to change. I've only said I think it's something > >> that is the way it is because of the design decisions made on the > >basis > >> of "reality" at the time, and which probably didn't contemplate the > >day > >> when everyone would have multi-terabyte hard drives and that people > >> might want more than 16 partitions. I stand corrected on that > >> speculation if I'm wrong. > > > >Reality hasn't changed. A sector is still 512 bytes, and > >disklabel has to fit in it. > > > >You are not LISTENING. > > Does this mean that with a sector of 4096 (modern HDDs/SSDs) and a patch - > we can have larger disklabel ?
We access all disks as multiples of 512, no matter what their underlying storage layout is. We align some stuff later, but that does not change the fact "struct disklabel" is precisely 512 bytes longer. Feel free to make your own version of code that works on some machines, but not other machines. Feel free to figure out for yourself how it solves nothing.
