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.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.