[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: raidframe oddity, take three (kernel panic!)
der Mouse wrote:
If so, then raidframe won't work with such large disks. You need
[...] rf_reconstruct.c 22.214.171.124 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 126.96.36.199).
Or is 188.8.131.52 _not_ later than 184.108.40.206? I don't totally understand
CVS version numbering isn't that strange really. You just need to read
up on the documentation.
220.127.116.11 might not be later than 18.104.22.168.
What you need to understand here is branch versions. Any CVS version
number in which the next to last number is zero is a branch point. And
the last number is then the number of that branch point (you can
obviously have several different branches from the same point).
So, 22.214.171.124 is a branch, and the base point for 1.95.2.x. If you check
out the branch, you will actually get the highest version that exists
from that branch, and not the version where the branch occurred, even
though if you look at the tag, that might be what you think you get.
So, in your case, you might get the same version, or you might get a
newer version. Since 126.96.36.199 exists, you should never get 1.95 (which
is what it branched from).
If you read the CVS documentation, you should look for magic versions
(or something like that, I can't remember the exact title, and I don't
have the CVS documentation in front of me).
Main Index |
Thread Index |