> On 16. Apr 2022, at 18:40, Andrius Varanavicius wrote:
>
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: andvar
> Date: Sat Apr 16 16:40:54 UTC 2022
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_netbsdkintf.c
>
> Log Message:
> Fix mistake in error branch locking caused by previous change
In article ,
Paul Goyette wrote:
>> Module Name:src
>> Committed By: mrg
>> Date: Tue Feb 5 09:28:00 UTC 2019
>>
>> Modified Files:
>> src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_netbsdkintf.c
>>
>> Log Message:
>> fix the previous:
>>
>> rf_netbsd32 is only relevant on _LP64 as all the st
It's still a behaviour change..
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:22:16PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> +static void
> +rf_handle_hosed(RF_Raid_t *raidPtr, RF_Config_t *cfgPtr, int hosed_column)
> +{
> + if (raidPtr->Disks[hosed_column].status == rf_ds_failed)
> + return;
equivalent to
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:22:16PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> +rf_handle_hosed(RF_Raid_t *raidPtr, RF_Config_t *cfgPtr, int hosed_column)
> +{
:
> + if (raidPtr->Disks[hosed_column].status == rf_ds_failed)
> + return;
equivalent to
if (raidPtr->Disks[hosed_column].status != rf
err, this does introduce a functional change... oops
it's if panicstr != NULL, but that's not the argument.
In article <112c4aeb-38d8-42d4-be3c-b53e866ea...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de>,
J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>
>Where does it call biodone()?
>
>biodone_vfs(bp); /* biodone() iff vfs present */
Nevertheless, it is best to check for the error and not biowait
needlessly.
christos
On 02 Jan 2016, at 17:07, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> In article <20160102160001.c978df...@cvs.netbsd.org>,
> Michael van Elst wrote:
>> @@ -2665,11 +2664,7 @@ raidread_component_area(dev_t dev, struc
>> bp->b_flags |= B_READ;
>> bp->b_resid = dsize;
>>
>> -bdev = bdevsw_lookup(bp-
In article <20160102160001.c978df...@cvs.netbsd.org>,
Michael van Elst wrote:
>@@ -2665,11 +2664,7 @@ raidread_component_area(dev_t dev, struc
> bp->b_flags |= B_READ;
> bp->b_resid = dsize;
>
>- bdev = bdevsw_lookup(bp->b_dev);
>- if (bdev == NULL)
>- return (E
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:59:01 +
From:"Paul Goyette"
Message-ID: <20151226125901.230e1f...@cvs.netbsd.org>
| if it does, all we really lose is auto-configuration of raid-sets.
Auto-config of raid is what makes many of my s
Date:Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:59:01 +
From:"Paul Goyette"
Message-ID: <20151226125901.230e1f...@cvs.netbsd.org>
| if it does, all we really lose is auto-configuration of raid-sets.
Auto-config of raid is what makes many of my systems function, if that
fails, the sy
Module Name:src
Committed By: pgoyette
Date: Sat Dec 26 00:58:45 UTC 2015
Modified Files:
src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_driver.c rf_driver.h rf_netbsdkintf.c
Log Message:
Modularize the raidframe driver, including rework of the unit attach
code to permit detaching (and possib
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:13:09PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > Or:
> > 1. add the ability to pass the root name through the bootblocks/userconf
> > 2. add a raidctl -A forceroot and obey that.
> >
> > | It seems to me that the behavior 1 (not in case 2) isn't useful, and
> > | that we
chris...@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> On Apr 3, 7:57am, m...@eterna.com.au (matthew green) wrote:
> -- Subject: re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
>
> | kernel configuration changes are not solutions, so 2 and 3 are out.
> |
> | if we do 4, we should instea
On Apr 3, 8:10am, m...@eterna.com.au (matthew green) wrote:
-- Subject: re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
|
| > > 4. we can add an option to mark the raid as force root.
| >
| > if we do 4, we should instead add an option to mark something as a
| > 'soft root
On Apr 3, 7:57am, m...@eterna.com.au (matthew green) wrote:
-- Subject: re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
| kernel configuration changes are not solutions, so 2 and 3 are out.
|
| if we do 4, we should instead add an option to mark something as a
| 'soft root', and leave t
:33am, g...@ir.bbn.com (Greg Troxel) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
>
> | It seems there are 3 behaviors for root
> |
> | 1) don't change the root device (old behavior with -A yes)
>
> That does autoconfig for raid and does not deal with root at
On Apr 2, 10:33am, g...@ir.bbn.com (Greg Troxel) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
| It seems there are 3 behaviors for root
|
| 1) don't change the root device (old behavior with -A yes)
That does autoconfig for raid and does not deal with root at all.
| 2) if
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:10:01 +1100
matthew green wrote:
>
> > > 4. we can add an option to mark the raid as force root.
> >
> > if we do 4, we should instead add an option to mark something as a
> > 'soft root', and leave the current semantics alone. the machines i
> > have that are now not go
> > 4. we can add an option to mark the raid as force root.
>
> if we do 4, we should instead add an option to mark something as a
> 'soft root', and leave the current semantics alone. the machines i
> have that are now not going to reboot properly are both used
> remotely, so changing semantics
> | > Log Message:
> | > If we are autoconfiguring root, then only change the booted_device if
> | > we booted from one of the components of the root raid set. This allows
> | > us to boot from other media, without forcing the found raid to always
> | > be root. Allow the old behavior with RAIDFRA
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:37:21AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:10pm, m...@eterna.com.au (matthew green) wrote:
> | i like this.. i think.
> |
> | i wonder if this will break my system that boot from a different
> | device to the raid root device.
>
> I think it will.
>
> | eg, u
I seemed to have missed the discussion for this change.
It seems there are 3 behaviors for root
1) don't change the root device (old behavior with -A yes)
2) if root is on a component, change root to the raid, otherwise don't
change.
3) force the root device to be the raid (old behavio
On Apr 2, 12:51pm, mar...@duskware.de (Martin Husemann) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
| On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:37:21AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > Well, there are different options here:
| > 1. is there a way to pass the root from ofwboot to netbsd?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:37:21AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Well, there are different options here:
> 1. is there a way to pass the root from ofwboot to netbsd?
> 2. since netbsd knows it boots normally from raid, you can put a
> "root on raidx" statement in your kernel.
> 3. you can
On Apr 2, 2:10pm, m...@eterna.com.au (matthew green) wrote:
-- Subject: re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe
|
| > Module Name:src
| > Committed By: christos
| > Date: Wed Apr 2 02:17:01 UTC 2014
| >
| > Modified Files:
| > src
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: christos
> Date: Wed Apr 2 02:17:01 UTC 2014
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_netbsdkintf.c
>
> Log Message:
> If we are autoconfiguring root, then only change the booted_device if
> we booted from one of the components of the roo
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: yamt
> Date: Fri May 27 22:48:25 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_driver.c
>
> Log Message:
> don't forget to destroy mutex.
thanks.
.mrg.
Module Name: src
Committed By:dyoung
Date:Thu Nov 5 17:52:32 UTC 2009
Modified Files:
src/sys/dev/raidframe: rf_netbsdkintf.c
Log Message:
Use deviter(9) instead of accessing alldevs directly. Compile-tested,
only.
this worries me.
28 matches
Mail list logo
