xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfsprogs patch for evms

To: Luciano Chavez <lnx1138@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfsprogs patch for evms
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:13:46 +0100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, lord@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1028231137.16184.202.camel@chavez>; from lnx1138@us.ibm.com on Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:45:37PM -0500
References: <1028213377.16184.77.camel@chavez> <20020801161512.A14257@infradead.org> <1028216192.16184.116.camel@chavez> <1028225798.16220.182.camel@chavez> <20020801195512.A20402@infradead.org> <1028231137.16184.202.camel@chavez>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:45:37PM -0500, Luciano Chavez wrote:
> Umm, where did you see O_NDELAY?

I meant O_NONBLOCK, sorry.

> Yes, evms does appear in /proc/devices. What dynamic major detection?
> Are you referring to the way device-mapper obtains major numbers? We
> only have one, 117.

I refer to the way of checking the major number that the actually running
kernel uses.  this is important for drivers such a dm or xvm that don't
have a static major but also helps other in case it e.g. acquires another
major number.

> Do you really want to fail mkfs.xfs if you can't get the stripe info?

is there any reason such an ioctl should fail for a valid evms configuration?
if no then yes, I want it to fail.  else we should just return 0.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>