Hi Pawel, Am Montag, den 30.06.2008, 17:07 -0700 schrieb Pawel Wojcik: > Michael, > Unfortunately, you are out of luck here. The CR 6595150 refers to the > controller that has pciclass Mass Storage/Other (018000), while your > controller has pciclass Mass Storage/RAID (010400) and therefore is > not recognized as the pci-ide controller that may use ata driver. > The code in pci_boot.c file (function is_pciide ), considers a > controller to be pci-ide controller (using pci-ide/ata drivers) only > if it has pciclass Mass Storage/IDE (01018x), Mass Storage/SATA > (01060x) and Mass Storage/Other (018000). > The code change to accommodate pci-ide "RAID" controllers is very > simple but it would give users a way to destroy their RAID data (if it > exists) by attaching controller and potentially RAID devices when > Solaris could not distinguish between RAID and non-RAID disks. > Please file new bug for Sil3512 controller (category: driver, > subcategory ata-x86) and attach your prtconf output. > I will update Suggested Fix field of this bug - but it would be to up > to someone in Open Solaris to re-build the drivers and test it.
<Homer> Doh! </Homer> :) I think I understand the problem... I'd like to know how the linux driver handles this, most likely it just ignores the "raid" (which I think is absolutely fine). As far as I know there is NO driver who uses the somewhat limited raid functionality for a different operating system than Windows. So even IF such an windows array is poped into a linux / solaris / bsd box on that controller (dual boot maybe) a sensible admin would not think he could access the array with a different OS than Windows, would he? After all, this controller is NOT a raid controller, it is a cheap controller which may have a few (if any) raid abilities in hardware. That said I see the possible windows array (with the windows driver) just as a complete software raid solution which I think windows can do out of the box with EVERY controller. Who would think he could acces the array with a different OS? Anyhow, at worst, I think the driver could just check the data on the harddisks and if some known "raid block" is found, inform the user, log it, refuse to attach, start whining... but I would just ignore it (like the linux driver most likely does) because... sorry... but if the admin sees there are two disks and does not start thinking why the hell it is not just one (like with a real raid array).... Anyhow, I'll file a bug as you suggested. greetings Michael _______________________________________________ driver-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
