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

[Greg Oster <oster%cs.usask.ca@localhost>]

der Mouse writes:
> >> 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).

Hmm.. 1.95.2.1 isn't sufficient..

> Or is 1.95.2.1 _not_ later than 1.95.0.2?  I don't totally understand
> CVS numbering.

I could have sworn that 1.95.2.3 was in 4.0.1, but maybe I'm thinking 
of 4.1??   Regardless, what you want is version 1.95.2.3 of rf_reconstruct.c
and the associated changes that go with them:

cvs rdiff -r1.29 -r1.29.2.1 src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_reconmap.c
cvs rdiff -r1.10 -r1.10.24.1 src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_reconmap.h
cvs rdiff -r1.95.2.2 -r1.95.2.3 src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_reconstruct.c
cvs rdiff -r1.22 -r1.22.24.1 src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_reconstruct.h
cvs rdiff -r1.24 -r1.24.2.1 src/sys/dev/raidframe/rf_revent.c

as mentioned here:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.netbsd.devel.cvs/112892

Later...

Greg Oster