Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 20:30 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 22:28 +0800 schrieb Bean:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Committed, grub-probe now now uses space as separator instead of newline.
> >
>
> grub-mkconfig is still broken with it even though you use now spaces
> instead
Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 22:28 +0800 schrieb Bean:
> Hi,
>
> Committed, grub-probe now now uses space as separator instead of newline.
>
grub-mkconfig is still broken with it even though you use now spaces
instead of newlines.
insmod doestn't support multiple modules at once.
--
Felix Zielc
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:22:56AM +0800, Bean wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15:09PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> >> - buf2 = grub_zalloc (size);
> >> + buf2 = grub_malloc (size);
> >> if (!buf2)
> >> return grub_errno;
> >>
> >> +
Hi,
Committed, grub-probe now now uses space as separator instead of newline.
--
Bean
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:15 +0800, Bean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> BTW, I found a regression on r2421 that cause raid5rec to fail:
>
> http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/grub2/disk/raid6_recover.c?root=grub&r1=2197&r2=2421
>
> buf and buf2 are two different variable.
>
> This new patch include the
Hello Bean,
great, it is working now.
However, "grub-probe -t abstraction" separates different modules with
newline character, so grub-mkconfig generates incorrect grub.cfg.
Patrik Horník
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 17:15, Bean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> BTW, I found a regression on r2421 that cause raid5re
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15:09PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>> - buf2 = grub_zalloc (size);
>> + buf2 = grub_malloc (size);
>> if (!buf2)
>> return grub_errno;
>>
>> + grub_memset (buf, 0, size);
>
> We just received 'buf' as parameter.
Am Dienstag, den 28.07.2009, 19:42 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15:09PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>
> > +static int
> > +probe_raid_level (grub_disk_t disk)
> > +{
> > + if (disk->dev->id != GRUB_DISK_DEVICE_RAID_ID)
> > +return -1;
> > +
> > + return ((struct grub_raid
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15:09PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> - buf2 = grub_zalloc (size);
> + buf2 = grub_malloc (size);
>if (!buf2)
> return grub_errno;
>
> + grub_memset (buf, 0, size);
We just received 'buf' as parameter. Why do we have to zero it here?
> +static int
> +probe_raid_le
Hi,
Oh, the link should be:
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/grub2/disk/raid5_recover.c?root=grub&r1=2197&r2=2421
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Bean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> BTW, I found a regression on r2421 that cause raid5rec to fail:
>
> http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/grub2/dis
Hi,
BTW, I found a regression on r2421 that cause raid5rec to fail:
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/grub2/disk/raid6_recover.c?root=grub&r1=2197&r2=2421
buf and buf2 are two different variable.
This new patch include the revert raid5_recover.c to r1828.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Hi,
Oh, I've found the problem. The abstraction is ok, but now partmap is
wrong. The original code assumes at most one level of abstraction when
detecting partmap, and it doesn't work on two level abstraction like
LVM on RAID. If you add module minicmd, you can use lsmod and see pc
module is missi
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Patrik Horník wrote:
> Hello Bean,
>
> it still does not work, I've tested your patch today against revision
> 2448 from SVN.
>
> - grub-probe works and detects ex2 filesystem on LVM volume on RAID5 arrays.
>
> - However grub on boot still does not detect filesystem
Hello Bean,
it still does not work, I've tested your patch today against revision
2448 from SVN.
- grub-probe works and detects ex2 filesystem on LVM volume on RAID5 arrays.
- However grub on boot still does not detect filesystem on root/boot
volume. It knows root LVM volume according ls command
Am Montag, den 20.07.2009, 03:34 +0800 schrieb Bean:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Patrik Horník wrote:
> > Bean, should Grub2 with this patch work if the boot partition is LVM
> > volume and LVM is placed on top of RAID 5 arrays?
>
> Hi,
>
> Yeah, it should work, please try it out.
>
I ju
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:58:50AM +0800, Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:41:04PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> >> + if (is_raid)
> >> + printf ("raid mdraid");
> >> +
> >> + if (is_lvm)
> >> + printf ((is_raid) ? " lvm" :
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:41:04PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>> + if (is_raid)
>> + printf ("raid mdraid");
>> +
>> + if (is_lvm)
>> + printf ((is_raid) ? " lvm" : "lvm");
>
> Is there a better way to handle this? Perhaps we could
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:41:04PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> + if (is_raid)
> + printf ("raid mdraid");
> +
> + if (is_lvm)
> + printf ((is_raid) ? " lvm" : "lvm");
Is there a better way to handle this? Perhaps we could make the list
newline separated instead of space separated and a
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 05:41:04PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've come up an alternative solution to grub_raid_rescan, we can use
> the same trick as lvm, call fini and then init function, this would
> have the same effect of rescanning. Now that grub_raid_rescan is gone,
> I can simply raid
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Patrik Horník wrote:
> Bean, should Grub2 with this patch work if the boot partition is LVM
> volume and LVM is placed on top of RAID 5 arrays?
Hi,
Yeah, it should work, please try it out.
--
Bean
___
Grub-devel mail
Bean, should Grub2 with this patch work if the boot partition is LVM
volume and LVM is placed on top of RAID 5 arrays?
Thanks,
Patrik
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 16:11, Bean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch fixes a few bug in lvm.
>
> There can be multiple copies of meta data, it's not an error, ignore
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:59:55PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Bean wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:11:19PM +0800, Bean wrot
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:59:55PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Bean wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:11:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> grub_raid_rescan ();
> >>> +
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Bean wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:11:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>>> }
>>>
>>> grub_raid_rescan ();
>>> + grub_lvm_fini ();
>>> + grub_lvm_init ();
>>
>> This is aside from this patch, but I don't
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 03:43:10AM +0800, Bean wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:11:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> >> }
> >>
> >> grub_raid_rescan ();
> >> + grub_lvm_fini ();
> >> + grub_lvm_init ();
> >
> > This is aside from this p
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:11:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>> }
>>
>> grub_raid_rescan ();
>> + grub_lvm_fini ();
>> + grub_lvm_init ();
>
> This is aside from this patch, but I don't see the purpose of this
> grub_raid_rescan() function.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:11:19PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> }
>
>grub_raid_rescan ();
> + grub_lvm_fini ();
> + grub_lvm_init ();
This is aside from this patch, but I don't see the purpose of this
grub_raid_rescan() function. It's in raid.mod but only used by
grub-fstest, so at least it
Hi,
This patch fixes a few bug in lvm.
There can be multiple copies of meta data, it's not an error, ignore
the extra copy instead of quit.
In case of LVM on RAID, the raid device and first disk would have the
same lvm header ! The raid device would be found first, so we don't
replace pv->disk i
28 matches
Mail list logo
