From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu,  3 Jul 2008 10:49:44 +0200
From: lejatorn@gmail.com
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20080703084943.GA3710@secousse.ipgp.jussieu.fr>
References: <20080702172816.GA3703@secousse.ipgp.jussieu.fr>
	<20080702180129.9A6C61E8C26@holo.morphisms.net>
	<20080702223519.GB19429@oenone.smgl.fr.eu.org>
	<20080702230637.GA4263@oenone.smgl.fr.eu.org>
	<254915465a821b43a207e0c0207e38ce@coraid.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <254915465a821b43a207e0c0207e38ce@coraid.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Subject: Re: [9fans] naive 9vx/fossil question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d85dd8ce-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 07:12:56PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Native plan9 still booting fine, and here's the configuration for
> > /dev/sdE0/fossil if it's of any relevance:
> > fsys main config /dev/sdE0/fossil
> > fsys main open -V -c 3000
> >
> > Also, so far only /dev/sda was rw for disk group so I've set /dev/sda1
> > (which is the whole plan9 partition) to rw as well for disk group, to
> > no avail.
>
> almost sounds like an offset problem.  do the partition
> definitions (cat /dev/sd??/ctl) differ between plan 9 native
> and 9vx?

aha, thanks Erik; those definitions indeed differ:

from plan9:
inquiry HITACHI HTS541616J9SA00
model	HITACHI HTS541616J9SA00
serial	SB2441GB2441GJJG4K3E
firm	SB4IC7UP
smart	disabled
flag	llba smart power nop
reg	task 50 cmd c017 serr 0  ci 0 is 0; sig 101 sstatus 0113
geometry 312581808 512
part data 0 312581808
part plan9 63 136760400
part 9fat 63 204863
part nvram 204863 204864
part fossil 204864 135711824
part swap 135711824 136760400
part linux 136760400 138756240
part linux1 138756240 148523760
part linux2 148523823 287189280
part linux3 287189343 291090240
part linux4 291090303 310625280
part linux5 310625343 312575760

from 9vx:
loop rw #Z/dev/sda
part plan9 63 136760400
part linux 136760400 138756240
part linux1 138756240 148523760
part linux2 148523823 287189280
part linux3 287189343 291090240
part linux4 291090303 310625280
part linux5 310625343 312575760
part 9fat 0 204800
part nvram 204800 204801
part fossil 204801 135711761
part swap 135711761 136760337

The "global" plan9 one (sda1) seem to be the same in both cases, as well
as the other sda* ones (linux), but the subpartitions (not sure they're
called that way) inside differ.
I suppose the correct one is the plan9 one, i.e 9fat should start at the
beginning of the plan9 one (at 63), and not at 0, right? Hence the reason
why everything has an offset of 63 inside the plan9 part, I guess.

So, what should I do? Is it a bug in 9vx, or is it something wrong in my
partitions that I have to correct?

Mathieu.