| 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@xxxxxxxxxx on Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:45:37PM -0500 |
| References: | <1028213377.16184.77.camel@chavez> <20020801161512.A14257@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1028216192.16184.116.camel@chavez> <1028225798.16220.182.camel@chavez> <20020801195512.A20402@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfsprogs patch for evms, Luciano Chavez |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfsprogs patch for evms, Luciano Chavez |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfsprogs patch for evms, Luciano Chavez |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfsprogs patch for evms, Luciano Chavez |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |