Neil Brown wrote:
On Sunday February 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think moving it would get much argument, but having it visible
has advantages as noted in the original post, and opens the door to
someone writing code to allow the uuid to be changed with a write to a
sys file. We
Neil Brown wrote:
On Saturday February 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Iustin Pop wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:59:48AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
From: Iustin Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch exposes the uuid and the degraded status of an assembled
array through sysfs.
On Sunday February 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think moving it would get much argument, but having it visible
has advantages as noted in the original post, and opens the door to
someone writing code to allow the uuid to be changed with a write to a
sys file. We had a discussion of
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:59:48AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
From: Iustin Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch exposes the uuid and the degraded status of an assembled
array through sysfs.
[...]
Sorry to ask, this was my first patch and I'm not sure what is the
procedure to get it considered for
Iustin Pop wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:59:48AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
From: Iustin Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch exposes the uuid and the degraded status of an assembled
array through sysfs.
[...]
Sorry to ask, this was my first patch and I'm not sure what is the
procedure
On Saturday February 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Iustin Pop wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:59:48AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
From: Iustin Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch exposes the uuid and the degraded status of an assembled
array through sysfs.
[...]
Sorry to
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 08:15:31AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
Resending after a suitable pause (1-2 weeks) is never a bad idea.
Ok, noted, thanks.
Exposing the UUID isn't - and if it were it should be in
md_default_attrs rather than md_redundancy_attrs.
The UUID isn't an intrinsic aspect of
