Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!rex!ben
From: ben@rex.uokhsc.edu (Benjamin Z. Goldsteen)
Subject: Coexisting on the PC
Message-ID: <CLz6un.A9G@rex.uokhsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 07:44:46 GMT
Reply-To: benjamin-goldsteen@uokhsc.edu
Organization: Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma
Lines: 33
Hello,
I have a proposition: I think the devices for 386BSD should renamed
to better conform to the PC. At least the hard drive and serial names.
As I understand it now, wd0a is my first partition, wd0b is my swap,
wd0c is my whole disk (or at least my 386BSD partition), etc. I think
this is rather confusing and limiting. I think the confusing part is
making wd0a my first sub-partition, wd0c my whole partition, and wd0e
my second sub-partition, etc. The limiting part is accessing other
partitions. I guess what I am proposing is this:
In the PC architecture we have:
# disk controllers
# disks on disk controller (2 disk on IDE, 7 on SCSI)
1-4 BIOS partitions
x sub-partitions
Therefore, the name would look like:
wd001a -- first sub-partition of BIOS partition 1 of first IDE disk (e.g. DOS)
sd012a -- second sub-partition of BIOS partition 2 of second SCSI disk
wd103 -- the entire third BIOS partition of the second IDE disk
sd20 -- the entire third SCSI disk
wd0 -- the first IDE controller (perhaps a "c" appended would be
fine too)
I don't particularly like having three digits in a row or so many
devices so I could "accept" (like I am demanding this...) alternatives.
However, I feel there is a need to specify these things somewhat
more "orthogonally".
Thank you for your support. You may now flame away!
--
Benjamin Z. Goldsteen