On 12.03.2011 20:15, Ben Kaduk wrote: > I think just "enables backward compatibility" is more standard English > usage. Not knowing much about the EBR scheme, I would also guess that > "for partition names in the EBR scheme" is what is intended here, but > that would be something of a guess.
Partitions from EBR have names like they were in FreeBSD prior to
GEOM_PART. E.g. ad0s5, ad0s6,... But without this option they may be
like these:
> gpart show -p ada2s3
=> 0 1830660048 ada2s3 EBR (873G)
0 17767890 ada2s3+00000001 !6 (8.5G)
17767890 189 - free - (95K)
17768079 1023939 ada2s3+00282034 ntfs (500M)
18792018 1481207994 - free - (706G)
1500000012 1023939 ada2s3+23809525 fat32 (500M)
1501023951 204750 ada2s3+23825778 fat32 (100M)
1501228701 329431347 - free - (157G)
> ls -1 /dev/ada2s3*
/dev/ada2s3
/dev/ada2s3+00000001
/dev/ada2s3+00282034
/dev/ada2s3+23809525
/dev/ada2s3+23825778
So, do you recommend to change first sentence to:
"The GEOM_PART_EBR_COMPAT option enables backward compatibility for
partition names in the EBR scheme."
>> +of the EBR scheme. Also it makes impossible any types of actions
>> +with such partitions.
>
> Judging by, e.g. r216755 of g_part_ebr.c, it seems that the sense of
> "impossible" is reversed. I think "It also allows such partitions to
> be modified" might be what is intended?
r216755 only allows destroy partition table, but you can not modify nor
partition, nor partition table.
--
WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
