Re: Looks like the arm 20220805 snapshots are still odd, so probably kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=0 was still in use
Glen Barber <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers,gmane.os.freebsd.devel.arm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Will do. I’ll commit the suggested change to main tomorrow. Thank you for your vigilant investigation. Glen Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity and/or typos. > On Aug 7, 2022, at 3:50 PM, Mark Millard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2022-Aug-7, at 12:32, Glen Barber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Correct, it was set to “0” for these builds. >> >> I honestly do not have any idea where the problems you are seeing are creeping in. >> >> Should it be set back to “1”? I’m not sure how to proceed otherwise. > > My guess is that if the release/tools/arm.subr line: > > chroot ${CHROOTDIR} gpart add -t freebsd-ufs -a 64k ${mddev}s2 > > was instead (note the added -b use): > > chroot ${CHROOTDIR} gpart add -t freebsd-ufs -b 64k -a 64k ${mddev}s2 > > then the line: > > chroot ${CHROOTDIR} newfs -U -L rootfs /dev/${mddev}s2a > > would work as expected and things would still be aligned: > no aliasing of BSD vs. freebsd-ufs. (In part this is by > prior steps already having achieved alignment of BSD.) > > But I do not know how to classify doing so: Work around? > Known required-procedure for -L rootfs to correctly > identify the the freebsd-ufs /dev/${mddev}s2a ? > > Absent better information from folks that know more, I'd > suggest trying such an adjusted release/tools/arm.subr > next week, leaving kern.geom.part.mbr.enforce_chs=0 in > place, if such an experiment can be reasonable. > >> Glen >> Sent from my phone. >> Please excuse my brevity and/or typos.