Subject: Re: raidframe parity: daily and before securelevel
To: rudolf <email@example.com>
From: Greg Oster <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/17/2007 15:42:29
> I think that /etc/rc.d/raidframeparity should be ordered before
> /etc/rc.d/securelevel - otherwise it is possible to get EPERM if the
> securelevel is raised in /etc/rc.conf and the parity might then be left
> It might be useful to test if the parity is clean from /etc/daily along
> with failed raidframe components too.
> What do you think? See the attached patches (made against recent netbsd-4).
The only reason a parity check should fail is if one of the
components has errors, which the "has anything failed?" check
That said, I certainly have nothing against the changes...