From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <509071940709051417l7e33e46bkac7ad38475675ba4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:17:05 -0400 From: "Anthony Sorace" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [9fans] confusion over cwfs devices? Topicbox-Message-UUID: b8b61ba4-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 i'm trying to get familiar with cwfs, and i'm having issues. i'm trying to use plain files for playing around, which cwfs(4) indicates should be fine. i've got a directory /tmp/cwfs with a bunch of files in it: confdisk0, fakedisk[0-3], and devmap. devmap has lines like: w0 /tmp/cwfs/fakedisk0 w4 /tmp/cwfs/confdisk0 for all of w[0-4]. invoking cwfs as 'cwfs -m devmap w4' yields the following: config diag: unknown type -- for each line in devmap. from playing around, it seems to only assume the second argument on the line is a device type, never a plain file (at least not there). changing the filename to fakedisk0 from /tmp/cwfs/fakedisk0 causes it to complain that "a" is an unknown type; it's trying to read it as an fs(4) device. i'm then dumped into the config system, just before which it gives me the promising line "map: mapped wren w4 to existing file /tmp/cwfs/confdisk0". i enter the config i'd like to use: service arkive filsys main cw4f[w<0-3>] filsys dump o ream main after the main line, i get one line of the above "map: mapped wren..." form for each of w[0-4], all of which look correct. the ream seems to have no effect. when i type end, however, i get this: sysinit config w4 map: mapped wren4 to existing file /tmp/cwfs/confdisk0 devinit w4 cwfs 50437: suicide: sys: trap: fault read addr=0x0 pc=0x00023efc and a console print "50437 cwfs: checked 30822 page table entries". the man page certainly implies with the dev-map example that this is possible, although there's no example of it. i see some code for cases when using plain files vs. sdXX files (with /data), but couldn't follow where the condition was set. is this usage known to work? are there further constraints i should be aware of?