[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: raidframe oddity, take three (kernel panic!)
Hello. Well, I don't entirely understand CVS numbering either.
However, a kernel I have which does work with 1TB disks just fine shows:
$NetBSD: rf_reconstruct.c,v 220.127.116.11 2008/04/19 15:52:11 bouyer Exp $
I'm pretty sure this will work. However, since I was the one who
helped Greg work this little bug out, it's possible my kernel doesn't
reflect all the right cvs version numbers, since I built everything, tested
it, and put it into production while all the changes were getting checked
in and pulled up.
Pulling from Sources for the netbsd-4 branch as of June 1 2008 or
later will definitely get you the right stuff.
On Dec 12, 4:18pm, der Mouse wrote:
} Subject: Re: raidframe oddity, take three (kernel panic!)
} >> If so, then raidframe won't work with such large disks. You need
} >> [...] rf_reconstruct.c 18.104.22.168 or later.
} > 4.0.1 seems to use 1.95.2.something, so I'll probably just push the
} > machine to 4.0.1. Thank you very much!
} Now done. Doesn't help.
} And yes, I've gone to some lengths to verify that the kernel that just
} now crashed is indeed the one I built an hour or two ago from the 4.0.1
} source tree (which means, with rf_reconstruct.c,v 22.214.171.124).
} Or is 126.96.36.199 _not_ later than 188.8.131.52? I don't totally understand
} CVS numbering.
} /~\ The ASCII Mouse
} \ / Ribbon Campaign
} X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
} / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
>-- End of excerpt from der Mouse
Main Index |
Thread Index |