Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday October 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to review the sysfs a bit more before it goes to Linus, but
> > > the rest can go anytime.
> >
> > umm, what does "the sysfs" refer to?
>
On Sunday October 30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd like to review the sysfs a bit more before it goes to Linus, but
> > the rest can go anytime.
>
> umm, what does "the sysfs" refer to?
Sorry.. "the sysfs related patches".
Those marked as 'TH
NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'd like to review the sysfs a bit more before it goes to Linus, but
> the rest can go anytime.
umm, what does "the sysfs" refer to?
Current md patches in -mm:
md-better-handling-of-readerrors-with-raid5.patch
md-initial-sysfs-support-for-md.patch
md
Two patches for md in 2.6.14-rc5-mm1 (First one depends on -mm stuff,
second should apply to most recent 2.6 kernels).
I'd like to review the sysfs a bit more before it goes to Linus, but
the rest can go anytime.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[PATCH md 001 of 2] Remove attempt to use dynamic names in sysfs
When an md array is started, the superblock will be written,
and resync may commense. This is not good if you want to be
completely read-only as, for example, when preparing to resume
from a suspend-to-disk image.
So introduce a module parameter "start_ro" which can be set
to '1' at boot, at mod
With version-0.90 superblock, component devices on an md device to not have any
stable name related to the array -(version-1 assigns a fixed index when a
device is added to an array, and this remains despit any hot-swap).
The intial code for making these devices appear in sysfs used
dynamic names
