Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

2007-05-31 Thread Bill Davidsen

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On May 30 2007 16:35, Bill Davidsen wrote:
  

On 29 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following:
  

from your post at
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I
read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently
impossible. Does it at least work to force the kernel to always assume
a 1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still don't
use mdadm in initramfs, and recreating the initramfs each time is a
bit cumbersome...


The kernel build system should be able to do that for you, shouldn't it?

  

That would be an improvement, yes.



Hardly, with all the Fedora specific cruft. Anyway, there was a
simple patch posted in RH bugzilla, so I've gone with that.
  
I'm not sure what Fedora has to do with it, it is generally useful to 
all distributions. What I had in mind was a make target, so that instead 
of install as target, you could have install_mdadm in the Makefile. 
Or mdadm_install to be consistent with modules_install perhaps.


--
bill davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

2007-05-31 Thread Jan Engelhardt

On May 31 2007 09:00, Bill Davidsen wrote:
  
 
 Hardly, with all the Fedora specific cruft. Anyway, there was a
 simple patch posted in RH bugzilla, so I've gone with that.
 
 I'm not sure what Fedora has to do with it,

I like highly modularized systems. And that requires an initramfs
to load all the required modules.


Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

2007-05-30 Thread Nix
On 29 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following:

 from your post at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I 
 read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently 
 impossible. Does it at least work to force the kernel to always assume a 
 1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still don't use 
 mdadm in initramfs, and recreating the initramfs each time is a bit 
 cumbersome...

The kernel build system should be able to do that for you, shouldn't it?

-- 
`On a scale of one to ten of usefulness, BBC BASIC was several points ahead
 of the competition, scoring a relatively respectable zero.' --- Peter Corlett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

2007-05-30 Thread Bill Davidsen

Nix wrote:

On 29 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following:

  
from your post at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I 
read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently 
impossible. Does it at least work to force the kernel to always assume a 
1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still don't use 
mdadm in initramfs, and recreating the initramfs each time is a bit 
cumbersome...



The kernel build system should be able to do that for you, shouldn't it?

  

That would be an improvement, yes.

--
bill davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

2007-05-30 Thread Jan Engelhardt

On May 30 2007 16:35, Bill Davidsen wrote:
 On 29 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following:
  from your post at
  http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I
  read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently
  impossible. Does it at least work to force the kernel to always assume
  a 1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still don't
  use mdadm in initramfs, and recreating the initramfs each time is a
  bit cumbersome...
 
 The kernel build system should be able to do that for you, shouldn't it?
 
 That would be an improvement, yes.

Hardly, with all the Fedora specific cruft. Anyway, there was a
simple patch posted in RH bugzilla, so I've gone with that.


Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

2007-05-30 Thread Nix
On 30 May 2007, Bill Davidsen stated:

 Nix wrote:
 On 29 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following:


 from your post at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I read 
 that autodetecting arrays with a
 1.x superblock is currently impossible. Does it at least work to force the 
 kernel to always assume a 1.x sb? There are some
 'broken' distros out there that still don't use mdadm in initramfs, and 
 recreating the initramfs each time is a bit cumbersome...

 The kernel build system should be able to do that for you, shouldn't it?

 That would be an improvement, yes.

Allow me to rephrase: the kernel build system *can* do that for you ;)
that is, it can build a gzipped cpio archive from components located
anywhere on the filesystem or arbitrary source located under usr/.

-- 
`On a scale of one to ten of usefulness, BBC BASIC was several points ahead
 of the competition, scoring a relatively respectable zero.' --- Peter Corlett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


RAID SB 1.x autodetection

2007-05-29 Thread Jan Engelhardt
Hi,


from your post at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I 
read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently 
impossible. Does it at least work to force the kernel to always assume a 
1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still don't use 
mdadm in initramfs, and recreating the initramfs each time is a bit 
cumbersome...


Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-raid in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html