On Saturday June 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I've moved from:
> md=4,/dev/sdf5,/dev/sdg5
> to:
> md=4,/dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target30/lun0/part5,\
> /dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target32/lun0/part5
>
> And now get:
> md: Unknown device name,\
> /dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target30/lun0/part5,\
> /dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target32/lun0/part5.
>
> : (
>
> md_setup() is displaying the error due to failing on name_to_kdev_t().
> root_dev_setup() calls name_to_kdev_t() with a long devfs name without a
> problem, so that's not the issue directly.
Yes... this is all very ugly.
root_dev_setup also stores the device name in root_device_name.
And then when actualy mounting root in fs/super.c::mount_root,
devfs_find_handle is called to map that name into a devfs object.
So maybe md_setup should store names as well, and md_setup_drive
should call devfs_find_handle like mount_root does.
But probably sticking with non-devfs names is easier.
Was there a particular need to change to devfs naming?
NeilBrown
>
> I think md_setup() is being run before the devfs names are fully registered,
> but i have no clue how the execution order
> of __setup() items is determined.
>
> Help?
>
> Dave
>
>
> md_setup() is run VERY early, much earlier then raid_setup().
> dmesg excerpt:
> ----------------
> mapped APIC to ffffe000 (fee00000)
> mapped IOAPIC to ffffd000 (fec00000)
> Kernel command line: devfs=mount raid=noautodetect
> root=/dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target2/lun0/part7
>
>md=4,/dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target30/lun0/part5,/dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target32/lun0/part5
> mem=393216K
> md: Unknown device name,
> /dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target30/lun0/part5,/dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target32/lun0/part5.
> Initializing CPU#0
> Detected 875.429 MHz processor.
> Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
