On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 22:26:11 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 21:20] wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 20:39:03 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>> * Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 15:21] wrote:
On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 3:27:02 -
* Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 21:20] wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 20:39:03 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 15:21] wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 3:27:02 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Vinum+DEVFS doesn't make the
On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 20:39:03 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 15:21] wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 3:27:02 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>>
>>> Vinum+DEVFS doesn't make the million symlinks that non-devfs
>>> vinum does.
>>
>> The only sy
* Boris Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 20:52] wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alfred Perlstein writes:
> >
> > >What's up with devfs not gc'ing itself? Ie, after a directory
> > >becomes empty it seems to still exist within the dev
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alfred Perlstein writes:
>
> >What's up with devfs not gc'ing itself? Ie, after a directory
> >becomes empty it seems to still exist within the devfs namespace
> >instead of disappearing.
>
> That was a deliberate
* Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 20:45] wrote:
> >
> > Yeah... don't really need that. :)
> >
> > In vinum's case there's a directory /dev/vinum/drive that points
> > to the device backing the vinum device:
> >
> > /dev/vinum % ls -lR
> > total 7
> > brwx-- 1 root wheel 25, 0
>
> Yeah... don't really need that. :)
>
> In vinum's case there's a directory /dev/vinum/drive that points
> to the device backing the vinum device:
>
> /dev/vinum % ls -lR
> total 7
> brwx-- 1 root wheel 25, 0x4001 Sep 26 1999 Control
> brwx-- 1 root wheel 25, 0x4002
* Greg Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 15:21] wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 3:27:02 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > Vinum+DEVFS doesn't make the million symlinks that non-devfs
> > vinum does.
>
> The only symlinks that the non-devfs version makes are to the drives.
> Everything
* Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 12:19] wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > * Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 12:02] wrote:
> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
>Jacob writes:
> > > >
> > > >> Lastly make_dev_alias() is undocumented.
> >
On Sunday, 11 March 2001 at 3:27:02 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 02:29] wrote:
>>
>> I'll sneak in my experience with DEVFS+vinum here as well:
>>
>> vinum: loaded
>> vinum: reading configuration from /dev/da3s1f
>> vinum: updating
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Jacob
writes:
>
>> Lastly make_dev_alias() is undocumented.
Right, just like most of the rest of the kernel.
>Really? That's a deficiency. It should be.
Yes, ideally, yes.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alfred Perlstein writes:
>What's up with devfs not gc'ing itself? Ie, after a directory
>becomes empty it seems to still exist within the devfs namespace
>instead of disappearing.
That was a deliberate decision, removing a directory(-inode) which
might have a val
> Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Hmm. Sounds to me more like an argument for requiring devfs if you
> > > > use vinum.
> > > Not until vinum works equally well with devfs as without it.
> > Har har har har har
>
> Ple
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Hmm. Sounds to me more like an argument for requiring devfs if you
> > > use vinum.
> > Not until vinum works equally well with devfs as without it.
> Har har har har har
Please take your sar
> Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmm. Sounds to me more like an argument for requiring devfs if you
> > use vinum.
>
> Not until vinum works equally well with devfs as without it.
Har har har har har
Almost a Catch-22... "We have to do really wierd things so vinum wi
I think I'm assuming that DEVFS will become standard. I really see it working
very very well and solving lots of problems. I have yet to really find cases
where it really *can't* work (modulo broken drivers).
>
> > Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Hmm. Sounds to me more like an
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. Sounds to me more like an argument for requiring devfs if you
> use vinum.
Not until vinum works equally well with devfs as without it.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscri
On 11 Mar 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Since you guys are in docco mode, you might as well document how one
> > > detects a devfs system in a running system.
> > Why should you care?
>
> Because if the system doesn't have devfs, the userland
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since you guys are in docco mode, you might as well document how one
> > detects a devfs system in a running system.
> Why should you care?
Because if the system doesn't have devfs, the userland vinum code
needs to create the device nodes "manually".
> Since you guys are in docco mode, you might as well document how one
> detects a devfs system in a running system. There's an example
> in the vinum(8) source:
>
> if (sysctlbyname("vfs.devfs.generation", NULL, NULL, NULL, 0) == 0)
> devfs_is_active = 1;
> else
> devfs
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 12:02] wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
>Jacob writes:
> > >
> > >> Lastly make_dev_alias() is undocumented.
> >
> > Right, just like most of the rest of the kernel.
> >
> > >Really
* Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 12:02] wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Jacob
>writes:
> >
> >> Lastly make_dev_alias() is undocumented.
>
> Right, just like most of the rest of the kernel.
>
> >Really? That's a deficiency. It should be.
>
> Yes, ideally, yes.
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Jacob
>writes:
> >
> >> Lastly make_dev_alias() is undocumented.
>
> Right, just like most of the rest of the kernel.
>
> >Really? That's a deficiency. It should be.
>
> Yes, ideally, yes.
I'm hacking the
> Lastly make_dev_alias() is undocumented.
Really? That's a deficiency. It should be.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
* Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 09:02] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Vinum+DEVFS doesn't make the million symlinks that non-devfs
> > vinum does.
>
> Why not? make_dev_alias() is cheap and easy to use.
Take a look at the /dev/vinum tree under devfs a
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Vinum+DEVFS doesn't make the million symlinks that non-devfs
> vinum does.
Why not? make_dev_alias() is cheap and easy to use.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-
* Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010311 02:29] wrote:
>
> I'll sneak in my experience with DEVFS+vinum here as well:
>
> vinum: loaded
> vinum: reading configuration from /dev/da3s1f
> vinum: updating configuration from /dev/da1s1e
> vinum: updating configuration from /dev
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 12:03:34AM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 10 March 2001 at 17:12:42 -0800, Matt Jacob wrote:
> > > (top of tree within the last day or so):
> > >
> > > Things seem *almost* okay, but:
> > >
> > > nellie.feral.
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 March 2001 at 17:12:42 -0800, Matt Jacob wrote:
> > (top of tree within the last day or so):
> >
> > Things seem *almost* okay, but:
> >
> > nellie.feral.com > root vinum
> > vinum -> stripe -v /dev/da3a /dev/da4a /dev/da5a /dev/da6a /de
On Saturday, 10 March 2001 at 17:12:42 -0800, Matt Jacob wrote:
> (top of tree within the last day or so):
>
> Things seem *almost* okay, but:
>
> nellie.feral.com > root vinum
> vinum -> stripe -v /dev/da3a /dev/da4a /dev/da5a /dev/da6a /dev/da7a /dev/da8a
> /dev/da9a /dev/da10a /dev/da11a /dev/
30 matches
Mail list logo
