Re: raidframe oddity, take three (kernel panic!)

[buhrow%lothlorien.nfbcal.org@localhost (Brian Buhrow)]

        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 1.95.2.2 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.
-Brian

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 1.95.0.2 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 1.95.2.1).
} 
} Or is 1.95.2.1 _not_ later than 1.95.0.2?  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