Stephen Powell wrote:
OK, so if all three drivers support minidisks, then what is Debian
bug report 447755 all about? The issue here is the *format* of the
minidisk. A DASD device, be it a dedicated device or a minidisk,
can have one of four formats under Linux for s390: cdl, ldl, CMS
On 2009-12-24, Frans Pop wrote:
Here's one of the reason why I cannot do anything about this: I only have
access to Hercules running Linux, so I cannot create CMS formatted disks.
Well, there are copies of very old releases of VM out there, such as VM/370
Release 6. VM/370 Release 6 has
Stephen Powell wrote:
If I were to boil the problem definition down to one sentence it would
be:
Partman does not recognize the pre-existing partition on disks which
are pre-formatted in the CMS non-reserved format or the CMS reserved
format.
Right. That narrows it down a lot. Partman is
On Thursday 24 December 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
Stephen Powell wrote:
Partman does not recognize the pre-existing partition on disks
which are pre-formatted in the CMS non-reserved format or the CMS
reserved format.
Right. That narrows it down a lot. Partman is almost exclusively shell
On Thursday 24 December 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
To start with:
- What device name does such a partition have?
- How could it be distinguished from a partitionable dasd?
The output of the following command would be useful as well:
# parted /dev/device print
Please send the replies for these
On 2009-12-14, Frans Pop wrote:
By far the best way is to try to get *upstream* to include the patch in one
of their stable updates for .32, so in 2.6.32.1 or 2.6.32.2. I would
suggest proposing that on the linux-s390 mailing list.
Pardon my ignorance, but would you mind giving me the full
On 2009-12-15, Stephen Powell wrote:
OK, so if all three drivers support minidisks, then what is Debian
bug report 447755 all about? The issue here is the *format* of the
minidisk. A DASD device, be it a dedicated device or a minidisk,
can have one of four formats under Linux for s390: cdl,
At the risk of flogging a dead horse, there's one more minor correction I
need to make.
On 2009-12-15, Stephen Powell wrote:
cdl format:
Low-level formatting: dasdfmt -d cdl (this is the default format for dasdfmt)
Partitioning: fdasd (up to three partitions can be created)
High-level
That's really the wrong way to look at it. Just look at the headers from
the mail: they clearly show that the mail was sent to you by the mailing
list software. It was delivered to you because *you* subscribed to the
list, not because *I* sent it to you.
Other mail clients (such as my own
Stephen Powell wrote:
When I click on reply, the To field is pre-filled-in with the
poster's e-mail address.
So, it's a limitation of *your* email client. The choice of client is up to
you, but forcing its limitations on others is backwards.
I don't think I understand what you are trying to
On 2009-12-14, Adam Thornton wrote:
On 2009-12-14, Stephen Powell wrote:
Well, it's definitely a bug. But whether or not it affects a significant
number of users is another story. This bug has been around since day 1 of
the driver. And I'm apparently the first one to find it. So
On 2009-12-15, Frans Pop wrote:
OK. My s390 knowledge is very limited. My understanding was that minidisks
were not supported at all (as there's a longstanding BR open to add
support for them in the installer).
OK, now I think I understand where the confusion lies. I'd start a new
thread
(No need to CC me; I read the list; see the Debian mailing list policy.)
Hello Stephen,
A few misconceptions in your mail. Let me try to correct them and offer
some advise on who to proceed.
But first of all: please don't hijack an existing thread for an unrelated
issue; next time, please
First of all, thank you very much for your lengthy reply. I am honored
that you took the time to explain so many things. However, I believe that
you have some misconceptions as well.
(No need to CC me; I read the list; see the Debian mailing list policy.)
Here is the exact wording from the
On Monday 14 December 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
Stephen Powell wrote:
I *did* ask the kernel team.
Yes, and I gave several reasons that could explain why they may not have
replied.
P.S.
I never meant to imply that anything you did was wrong. I was just trying
to explain why it was not
On Dec 14, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Stephen Powell wrote:
Well, it's definitely a bug. But whether or not it affects a significant
number of users is another story. This bug has been around since day 1 of
the driver. And I'm apparently the first one to find it. So claiming that
it affects a
16 matches
Mail list logo
