On Wednesday December 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > here we have lost the "part" automatic variable in disk_name but
> >
>
> I don't think so. Look again.
Gulp... :-(
Yes, your patch is indeed fine. I heartily recommend it (for whatever
that is worth).
Neil Brown wrote:
>
> On Wednesday December 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > >
> > > [Roberto Ragusa]
> > > > BTW, here is a little patch regarding a silly problem I found
> > > > about RAID partitions naming (/proc/partitions).
> > > > No more "md8" "md9" "md:" "md;" ..
On Wednesday December 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Roberto Ragusa]
> > > BTW, here is a little patch regarding a silly problem I found
> > > about RAID partitions naming (/proc/partitions).
> > > No more "md8" "md9" "md:" "md;" ... but "md8" "md9" "md10" "md11" ..
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Brian Kress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > I got resounding silence to posting the patch last time, so I'm not
> > sure if anyone actually wants this patch,
>
> Well, I like it, but admittedly it's mostly in the "cleanup" category
> (though it does fix the LVM name issue) s
[Brian Kress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I got resounding silence to posting the patch last time, so I'm not
> sure if anyone actually wants this patch,
Well, I like it, but admittedly it's mostly in the "cleanup" category
(though it does fix the LVM name issue) so at this point in 2.4 I guess
Linus
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Roberto Ragusa]
> > BTW, here is a little patch regarding a silly problem I found
> > about RAID partitions naming (/proc/partitions).
> > No more "md8" "md9" "md:" "md;" ... but "md8" "md9" "md10" "md11" ...
> > Well, this patch should work up to "md99".
>
> This stu
[Roberto Ragusa]
> BTW, here is a little patch regarding a silly problem I found
> about RAID partitions naming (/proc/partitions).
> No more "md8" "md9" "md:" "md;" ... but "md8" "md9" "md10" "md11" ...
> Well, this patch should work up to "md99".
This stuff *really* should be split out into th
On 06-Dec-00, Neil Brown wrote:
> The following patch isn't *correct*, but if it makes a difference for
> you, then it means that we have found the problem.. please let me
> know.
[one line patch]
Yes, it makes a difference :-) . The boot doesn't fail anymore and
all the RAID partitions are corr
On Monday December 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 01-Dec-00, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Friday December 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I found a real showstopper problem in the SoftwareRAID autodetect
> >> code; 2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11 are affected (I didn't test
> >> previous versions).
>
On 01-Dec-00, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday December 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I found a real showstopper problem in the SoftwareRAID autodetect
>> code; 2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11 are affected (I didn't test
>> previous versions).
[detailed report]
>
> Fixed in 2.4.0-test12pre3.
I tri
On Friday December 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please CC to me because I'm not a LKML subscriber.
>
> Hi,
>
> I found a real showstopper problem in the SoftwareRAID autodetect
> code; 2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11 are affected (I didn't test
> previous versions).
Fixed in 2.4.0-test12pre3.
Please CC to me because I'm not a LKML subscriber.
Hi,
I found a real showstopper problem in the SoftwareRAID autodetect
code; 2.4.0-test10 and 2.4.0-test11 are affected (I didn't test
previous versions).
I'm using two IDE disk with some RAIDed partitions:
md5 : active raid0 hdc5[1] hda5[0]
12 matches
Mail list logo
