Alexandre Oliva wrote:
[]
If mdadm can indeed scan all partitions to bring up all raid devices
in them, like nash's raidautorun does, great. I'll give that a try,
Never, ever, try to do that (again). Mdadm (or vgscan, or whatever)
should NOT assemble ALL arrays found, but only those which it
Ingo Oeser wrote:
Hi Neil,
I think the names in this patch don't match the description at all.
May I suggest different ones?
On Monday, 31. July 2006 09:32, NeilBrown wrote:
Instead of magic numbers (0,1,2,3) in sb_dirty, we have
some flags instead:
MD_CHANGE_DEVS
Some device state has
On Tuesday August 1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
don't think this is better, NeilBrown wrote:
raid10d has t many nested block, so take the fix_read_error
functionality out into a separate function.
Definite improvement in readability. Will all versions of the compiler
do something
On Aug 1, 2006, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll give it a try some time tomorrow, since I won't turn on that
noisy box today any more; my daughter is already asleep :-)
But then, I could use my own desktop to test it :-)
But then, I wouldn't be testing quite the same scenario.
On Aug 1, 2006, Michael Tokarev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
[]
If mdadm can indeed scan all partitions to bring up all raid devices
in them, like nash's raidautorun does, great. I'll give that a try,
Never, ever, try to do that (again). Mdadm (or vgscan, or whatever)
On Aug 1, 2006, Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I rarely think you are totally wrong about anything RAID, but I do
believe you have missed the point of autodetect. It is intended to
work as it does now, building the array without depending on some user
level functionality.
Well, it
