In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
Make that _three_ bugs: vinum opens devices directly at the cdevsw
level, bypassing in the process the vnodes and specfs.
Here is a patch that makes it use vn_open/vn_close/VOP_IOCTL,
bringing it much closer to the way ccd(4) does things.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], n0go013 writes:
rebuilt kernel with GEOM and everything is ok but disklabel now dumps a
warning message for each undefined partition. should these be manually
initialised to valid entries or is this a bug ?
more importantly vinum can no longer find the drives but
On 04.10-14:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I suspect vinum uses this sysctl to get an inventory of disks in
the system, so can I get you to try again making sure you have
rev. 1.20 of src/sys/geom/geom_disk.c ?
still in the middle of the build but i don't think so -- it looks like
vinum is
On 04.10-15:40, fergus wrote:
On 04.10-14:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[...]
I suspect vinum uses this sysctl to get an inventory of disks in
the system, so can I get you to try again making sure you have
rev. 1.20 of src/sys/geom/geom_disk.c ?
[...]
i'll let you know the test results
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], n0go013 writes
:
On 04.10-15:40, fergus wrote:
On 04.10-14:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[...]
I suspect vinum uses this sysctl to get an inventory of disks in
the system, so can I get you to try again making sure you have
rev. 1.20 of src/sys/geom/geom_disk.c
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], n0go013 writ
es
:
On 04.10-15:40, fergus wrote:
On 04.10-14:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[...]
I suspect vinum uses this sysctl to get an inventory of disks in
the system, so can I get you to try again making sure you have
* Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
vinum is so much unbelievable stuff in it. Consider this stuff:
sys/dev/vinum/vinumio.c:
[Big ugly if/else fallthrough snipped]
Ick... Which sick person wrote that? switch() and cpp macros usually do
wonders in cases like these in terms of
Emiel Kollof wrote:
* Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
vinum is so much unbelievable stuff in it. Consider this stuff:
sys/dev/vinum/vinumio.c:
[ ... ]
This crud has *got* to be taken out and shot, then reworked to do it
properly.
Amen! (and no, I'm not volunteering. I don't
Terry Lambert wrote:
Emiel Kollof wrote:
* Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
vinum is so much unbelievable stuff in it. Consider this stuff:
sys/dev/vinum/vinumio.c:
[ ... ]
This crud has *got* to be taken out and shot, then reworked to do it
properly.
Amen! (and
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
I think the major problem with the Vinum code is that it isn't
very readable in an 80 column editor window with 8 column tabs,
but that's pretty much the worst you can say about it, other than
the code has not been maintained by the people changing
Terry Lambert wrote:
Emiel Kollof wrote:
* Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
vinum is so much unbelievable stuff in it. Consider this stuff:
sys/dev/vinum/vinumio.c:
[ ... ]
This crud has *got* to be taken out and shot, then
reworked to do it
properly.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
The assumption here is that the devfs will be available to the system
before the root is mounted transparently over it. This is also doable
with an unmounted instance of the backing devfs, not yet mounted on
/dev, if a transparent mount of / over
On Friday, 4 October 2002 at 14:11:57 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], n0go013 writ
es
:
On 04.10-15:40, fergus wrote:
On 04.10-14:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[...]
I suspect vinum uses this sysctl to get an inventory of disks in
the
On Friday, 4 October 2002 at 16:03:24 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Emiel Kollof wrote:
* Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
vinum is so much unbelievable stuff in it. Consider this stuff:
sys/dev/vinum/vinumio.c:
[ ... ]
This crud has *got* to be taken out and
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
The assumption here is that the devfs will be available to the system
before the root is mounted transparently over it. This is also doable
with an unmounted instance of the backing devfs, not yet
On Friday, 4 October 2002 at 20:07:11 -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
The assumption here is that the devfs will be available to the system
before the root is mounted transparently over it. This is also doable
with an unmounted instance of the backing
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 4 October 2002 at 16:03:24 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Emiel Kollof wrote:
* Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
vinum is so much unbelievable stuff in it. Consider this stuff:
sys/dev/vinum/vinumio.c:
[ ... ]
This
On Friday, 4 October 2002 at 20:21:29 -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
The assumption here is that the devfs will be available to the system
before the root is mounted transparently over it. This is also doable
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
FWIW, I've never seen this code. The dates on the patch suggest that
it was made in the last quarter of an hour:
I didn't claim that this was his code. This was code I just wrote to
address Vinum not finding the devices due to major/minor
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Robert Watson wrote:
On the general topic of access to devices before a root has been found,
Maxime Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] has done some interesting work on
'rootfs', a pseudofs used to bootstrap support for devfs, etc. In such an
environment, Vinum and other
On Friday, 4 October 2002 at 20:29:51 -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
FWIW, I've never seen this code. The dates on the patch suggest that
it was made in the last quarter of an hour:
I didn't claim that this was his code. This was code I just
* De: Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-10-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: [ GEOM tests ] disklabel warnings and vinum drives lost ]
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Robert Watson wrote:
On the general topic of access to devices before a root has been found,
Maxime Henrion [EMAIL
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robe
rt Watson writes:
However, here's a patch that makes Vinum use namei() to rely on devfs to
locate requested devices instead of parsing the device name and guessing
the device number (incorrectly with GEOM). Unfortunately, I almost
immediately run into a divide
[CCs trimmed]
The divide by zero problem seems to be caused by an interaction
between two bugs: GEOM refuses to return the sector size because
...
The next failure I get is:
Can't write config to /dev/da1s1d, error 45 (EOPNOTSUPP)
This turns out to be vinum doing a DIOCWLABEL to make
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Ian Dowse wrote:
The divide by zero problem seems to be caused by an interaction
between two bugs: GEOM refuses to return the sector size because
...
The next failure I get is:
Can't write config to /dev/da1s1d, error 45 (EOPNOTSUPP)
This turns out to be vinum
On Saturday, 5 October 2002 at 4:08:19 +0100, Ian Dowse wrote:
[CCs trimmed]
The divide by zero problem seems to be caused by an interaction
between two bugs: GEOM refuses to return the sector size because
...
The next failure I get is:
Can't write config to /dev/da1s1d, error 45
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Ian Dowse wrote:
The divide by zero problem seems to be caused by an interaction
between two bugs: GEOM refuses to return the sector size because
...
The next failure I get is:
Can't write config to /dev/da1s1d, error 45 (EOPNOTSUPP)
This turns out to be vinum
On Saturday, 5 October 2002 at 4:08:19 +0100, Ian Dowse wrote:
[CCs trimmed]
The divide by zero problem seems to be caused by an interaction
between two bugs: GEOM refuses to return the sector size because
...
The next failure I get is:
Can't write config to /dev/da1s1d, error 45
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Dowse writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robe
rt Watson writes:
However, here's a patch that makes Vinum use namei() to rely on devfs to
locate requested devices instead of parsing the device name and guessing
the device number (incorrectly with GEOM).
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg 'groggy' Lehey
writes:
I don't know how GEOM handles disk labels, though we've heard a lot
about changes. It's possible that this code is now completely
redundant. It's preparing to write at offset 8 sectors and on from
the beginning of the partition; it
30 matches
Mail list logo
