* Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010322 13:42] wrote:
>
> 1. You mixed type and instance number - see the diff
>
> 2. A result of 1.
>
> 3. I asume the same reason as 1. and 2.
>The number was filtered and the call failed.
>Yet to check.
>
> 4. I don't have anything more than this.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:45:03PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010322 12:39] wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:46:40PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > > 1. The minor numbers are completely different from what I have
> > >without devfs.
>
* Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010322 12:39] wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:46:40PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > 1. The minor numbers are completely different from what I have
> >without devfs.
> >Without a volume is 91,0 91,1 ...
> >With I get 91,0 91,0x100
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:46:40PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> 1. The minor numbers are completely different from what I have
>without devfs.
>Without a volume is 91,0 91,1 ...
>With I get 91,0 91,0x100 91,2000 ...
>Similar plexes, ...
> 2. When I mount I get with all volu
1. The minor numbers are completely different from what I have
without devfs.
Without a volume is 91,0 91,1 ...
With I get 91,0 91,0x100 91,2000 ...
Similar plexes, ...
2. When I mount I get with all volume nodes the same filesystem.
Not astonishing with the broken minors.
3
