On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Darren Nickerson wrote:
[snip]
> Either the pre-16 patch fails on an Ingo-patched raid1.c with:
>
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 211.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 303.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 719.
> 3 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to drivers/block/raid1.c.rej
>
> or Ingo's RAID patch fails after applying pre-16 with:
>
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 143.
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 207 (offset 4 lines).
> Hunk #10 FAILED at 284.
> Hunk #11 succeeded at 395 (offset 8 lines).
> Hunk #13 FAILED at 864.
> Hunk #14 succeeded at 1223 (offset 12 lines).
> 3 out of 15 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to drivers/block/raid1.c.rej
>
> No matter what, the diff is too damn big for me to hand crank. And I never got
> it down to one chunk rejected.
Ok, I almost did it again today, this time with 2.2.15pre17 but without the IDE
patch.
2.2.14 + 2.2.14 RAID + 2.2.15pre17 ( + i2c + lmsensors + homebrew wdt patch)
in that exact order gives you a reject for raid1.c. Simply change the
raid1_kmalloc routine so that it reads:
static void * raid1_kmalloc (int size)
{
void * ptr;
/*
* now we are rather fault tolerant than nice, but
* there are a couple of places in the RAID code where we
* simply can not afford to fail an allocation because
* there is no failure return path (eg. make_request())
*/
while (!(ptr = kmalloc (sizeof (raid1_conf_t), GFP_KERNEL))) {
printk ("raid1: out of memory, retrying...\n");
current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD;
schedule();
}
memset(ptr, 0, size);
return ptr;
}
and that's it. You will see that the reject simply barfs on the change moving
the kmalloc calls to the generic raid1_kmalloc routine, which is changed in the
pre patches to behave nicer on OOM conditions.
Note, that if you apply the raid patch _after_ Alan's pre-patch, you will get
a very large reject which touches most of the raid1 code. You should make sure
that the reject touches only the kmalloc parts before counting on the above to
work.
>
> Jakob> I can recommend the 2.2.15pre patch, it solves instability problems in
> Jakob> 2.2.14 and was definitely worth the extra trouble for me.
>
> Not sure how you managed it. I'm going to have to settle for 2.2.14, and see
> if I can find out what "instability problems" you're talking about.
:)
2.2.14 worked just fine on several machines. I don't recall which had the problem,
or what triggered instability.
--
................................................................
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
