On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:07:13PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
Of course, still better would be to fix vnd, though I'm not sure what
the right fix would be.
What's the problem? My vague understanding was that you could get into
deadlocks allocating blocks, but maybe I'm confusing it with
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:04:26AM +, David Laight wrote:
The PR rather leads to the conclusion that the support for
old Partition IDs in disklabel(8) is suboptimal.
Originally, the code did only consider a partition with the
old ID if no new one was found. This apparently got
hi,
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:07:13PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
Of course, still better would be to fix vnd, though I'm not sure what
the right fix would be.
What's the problem? My vague understanding was that you could get into
deadlocks allocating blocks, but maybe I'm confusing it
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 05:07:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
Are *our* ancient disklabels partition-relative? It's so long ago that
I'm not sure... but the code in currently in disklabel(8) doesn't appear
to know anything at all about partition-relative labels.
They are not. This was a
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 04:58:16AM +, David Holland wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:07:13PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
Of course, still better would be to fix vnd, though I'm not sure what
the right fix would be.
What's the problem? My vague understanding was that you could get into
