MAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:21 AM
Subject: [PATCH,RFC] initrd vs. BLKFLSBUF
Hi Al,
Jeff Chua reported a while ago that BLKFLSBUF returns EBUSY on a RAM disk
that was obtained via initrd. I think the problem is that the effect of
the blkdev_ope
Jeff Chua wrote:
> I'm posting this again hoping that it'll get incorporated into the kernel.
It's already in Alan's tree (e.g. patch-2.4.0test11-ac1.bz2) and should
find its way from there into Linus' tree soon (i.e. probably by test12).
- Werner
--
_
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:21 AM
Subject: [PATCH,RFC] initrd vs. BLKFLSBUF
Hi Al,
Jeff Chua reported a while ago that BLKFLSBUF returns EBUSY on a RAM disk
that was obtained via initrd. I think the p
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:21 AM
Subject: [PATCH,RFC] initrd vs. BLKFLSBUF
Hi Al,
Jeff Chua reported a while ago that BLKFLSBUF returns EBUSY on a RAM disk
that was obtained via initrd. I think the p
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:21 AM
Subject: [PATCH,RFC] initrd vs. BLKFLSBUF
Hi Al,
Jeff Chua reported a while ago that BLKFLSBUF returns EBUSY on a RAM disk
that was obtained
Hi Al,
Jeff Chua reported a while ago that BLKFLSBUF returns EBUSY on a RAM disk
that was obtained via initrd. I think the problem is that the effect of
the blkdev_open(out_inode, ...) in drivers/block/rd.c:rd_load_image is
not undone at the end. I've attached a patch for 2.4.0-test11-pre7 that
s
6 matches
Mail list logo
