On Sep 18, 2023, at 17:05, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 18.09.2023 19:21, Mark Millard wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 2023, at 15:51, Mark Millard wrote:
>>> Alexander Motin wrote on
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:26:56 UTC :
block_cloning feature is marked as READONLY_COMPAT. It should not
On 18.09.2023 19:21, Mark Millard wrote:
On Sep 18, 2023, at 15:51, Mark Millard wrote:
Alexander Motin wrote on
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:26:56 UTC :
block_cloning feature is marked as READONLY_COMPAT. It should not
require any special handling from the boot code.
From
On Sep 18, 2023, at 15:51, Mark Millard wrote:
> Alexander Motin wrote on
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:26:56 UTC :
>
>> block_cloning feature is marked as READONLY_COMPAT. It should not
>> require any special handling from the boot code.
>
> From stand/libsa/zfs/zfsimpl.c but adding a
Alexander Motin wrote on
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:26:56 UTC :
> block_cloning feature is marked as READONLY_COMPAT. It should not
> require any special handling from the boot code.
From stand/libsa/zfs/zfsimpl.c but adding a comment about the
read-only compatibility status of each entry:
/*
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 01:27:55PM -0500, Mike Karels wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2023, at 10:38, Michael Butler wrote:
>
> > On 8/8/23 13:50, Michael Butler wrote:
> >> On 8/8/23 10:56, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:02:32 +0300
> >>> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >>
> >> [ .. snip ..
At least, if I read the code correctly,
"com.fudosecurity:block_cloning",
should be added to array
*features_for_read[]
of stand/libsa/zfs/zfsimpl.c.
There are check codes like below, so without it, boot codes would
reject to boot from any pool having block_cloning feature enabled.
Am I
On 9/18/23 14:27, Mike Karels wrote:
[ .. snip .. ]
avail memory = 16363008000 (15604 MB)
CPU microcode: updated from 0xc to 0x10
With the most recent microcode update, this device reports ..
CPU microcode: updated from 0xc to 0x11
.. and is now stable with vm.pmap.pcid_enabled=0,
On 18 Sep 2023, at 10:38, Michael Butler wrote:
> On 8/8/23 13:50, Michael Butler wrote:
>> On 8/8/23 10:56, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:02:32 +0300
>>> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>
>> [ .. snip .. ]
>>
The workaround is switched on automatically, when kernel detects
On 8/8/23 13:50, Michael Butler wrote:
On 8/8/23 10:56, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:02:32 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
[ .. snip .. ]
The workaround is switched on automatically, when kernel detects
'small cores'
reported by CPUID.
If I read the code correctly,
block_cloning feature is marked as READONLY_COMPAT. It should not
require any special handling from the boot code.
On 18.09.2023 07:22, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
Really OK?
I cannot find block_cloning in array *features_for_read[] of
stand/libsa/zfs/zfsimpl.c, which possibly mean boot codes
(Intentionally dropped @gmail.com recipients, as gmail refuses to
accept emaif from my email domain, unfortunately.)
Really OK?
I cannot find block_cloning in array *features_for_read[] of
stand/libsa/zfs/zfsimpl.c, which possibly mean boot codes (including
loader) cannot boot from Root-on-ZFS
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 07:31:46AM +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
> I vote for enabling block cloning on main :-)
Have you or anyone else run through the test suite with block cloning
enabled?
> On 16. 9. 2023 19:14, Alexander Motin wrote:
> > On 16.09.2023 01:25, Graham Perrin wrote:
> > > On
12 matches
Mail list logo
