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 -0800, Alfred
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.com root vinum
* 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/da2s1e
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
* 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 and
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
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 man page now..
* 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.
The problem with
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? That's a deficiency.
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
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".
DES
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 vinum code
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 "unsubscribe
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.
Har har har har har
Almost a Catch-22... "We have to do really wierd things so vinum will work
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 sarcasm and shove
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] |
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 configuration
* 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.
Right, just like
* 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 else is
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 Sep 26
* 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, 0x4001 Sep 26
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 decision,
* 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 devfs namespace
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 symlinks that the
* 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 million symlinks
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/da12a
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 /dev/da7a
28 matches
Mail list logo
