Keith Owens writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The infamous LINK_FIRST infrastructure was sort of half-way done.
>>
>> It would be best to cause drivers with an unspecified link order
>> to move around a bit, so that errors may be discovered more quickly.
>
> The "other"
[Albert D. Cahalan]
> The infamous LINK_FIRST infrastructure was sort of half-way done.
I disagree: it could handle all cases I could see that we might
reasonably care about. I challenge anyone to come up with a
non-pathological case that could not be taken care of with a single
LINK_FIRST and/
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:58:28 -0500 (EST),
"Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The infamous LINK_FIRST infrastructure was sort of half-way done.
>
>It would be best to cause drivers with an unspecified link order
>to move around a bit, so that errors may be discovered more quickly.
Th
Peter Samuelson writes:
> [Neil Brown]
>> In drivers/md/Makefile, swap the order of "raid5.o xor.o" to be
>> "xor.o raid5.o", recompile, install, reboot.
>
> Don't forget the part about adding a comment saying that xor.c does in
> fact need to come before raid5.c. This is the part that most like
[Neil Brown]
> In drivers/md/Makefile, swap the order of "raid5.o xor.o" to be
> "xor.o raid5.o", recompile, install, reboot.
Don't forget the part about adding a comment saying that xor.c does in
fact need to come before raid5.c. This is the part that most likely
will not happen, so that two m
5 matches
Mail list logo
