Gadi Oxman wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
[ Saturday, September 18, 1999 ] James Manning wrote:
Ok, I wrote a patch that passes the ctl_table pointer of
/proc/dev/md as the param for raid?_init, but noticed differing
opinions on return values (although it doesn't
[ Sunday, September 19, 1999 ] CJones wrote:
Gadi Oxman wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
Well, I tried booting and it died with some SYSCTL() errors (figures :)
so if it looks like the patch at least has the right idea, let me know
and I'll try fixing up the
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
Since the previous sysctl code had been ripped out, this was pretty
James, are you patching against the latest RAID source? 2.3.18 has a
painfully outdated RAID driver. (i'm working on porting the newest stuff
to 2.3 right now)
simple, just pulling
[ Saturday, September 18, 1999 ] Ingo Molnar wrote:
James, are you patching against the latest RAID source? 2.3.18 has a
painfully outdated RAID driver. (i'm working on porting the newest stuff
to 2.3 right now)
I guess so... I needed 2.3.1[78] for a third-party binary-only module,
but
Ok, I wrote a patch that passes the ctl_table pointer of
/proc/dev/md as the param for raid?_init, but noticed differing
opinions on return values (although it doesn't much matter)
[root@jmm block]# grep raid._init *.c|grep -v return
md.c:void raid0_init (void);
md.c:void raid1_init (void);
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, James Manning wrote:
[ Saturday, September 18, 1999 ] James Manning wrote:
Ok, I wrote a patch that passes the ctl_table pointer of
/proc/dev/md as the param for raid?_init, but noticed differing
opinions on return values (although it doesn't much matter)
[snip]
[ Thursday, September 16, 1999 ] James Manning wrote:
Lingering question:
- Can the 128 sector count for switching be changed safely?
if so, I'd love to see something in /proc I could echo a new number into
to tune the disk switching to my particular access patterns...
Since the
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Paul Jimenez wrote:
This patch is based on the md.c that shipped with the 2.2.11 kernel; it
calls md_stop() on all RAID partitions still around at shutdown/reboot
time, which allows one to have a small (non-RAID) /boot partition with
a kernel on it and a larger (RAID1)
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 11:40:49AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Paul Jimenez wrote:
This patch is based on the md.c that shipped with the 2.2.11 kernel; it
calls md_stop() on all RAID partitions still around at
On Thursday, Sep 9, 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Paul Jimenez wrote:
This patch is based on the md.c that shipped with the 2.2.11 kernel; it
calls md_stop() on all RAID partitions still around at shutdown/reboot
time, which allows one to have a small (non-RAID) /boot
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 11:51:23AM +0200, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 11:40:49AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Paul Jimenez wrote:
This patch is based on the md.c that shipped with the 2.2.11 kernel; it
calls md_stop() on all RAID
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 12:15:09PM +0001, Thomas Seidel wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I'm sort of wondering, because I've had a lot of luck with older versions,
and would hate to upgrade all the boxes if it's not necessary :)
I agree with you. I posted
This patch is based on the md.c that shipped with the 2.2.11 kernel; it
calls md_stop() on all RAID partitions still around at shutdown/reboot
time, which allows one to have a small (non-RAID) /boot partition with
a kernel on it and a larger (RAID1) partition that's /.
I'm a bit paranoid, so
13 matches
Mail list logo
