Re: RAID1 broken 2.2.12 -> 2.2.16??

• Next message: Adam J. Richter: "2.4.0-test3: undefined references due to 64 bit arithmetic"
• Previous message: willy@thepuffingroup.com: "Re: why is trampoline.S code copied for each cpu?"
• Maybe in reply to: Robert Dale: "RAID1 broken 2.2.12 -> 2.2.16??"
• Next in thread: Khimenko Victor: "Re: RAID1 broken 2.2.12 -> 2.2.16??"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

>One interesting thing of note is the md driver version went from
0.90.0
>in 2.2.12 _down_ to 0.36.6 in 2.2.16!

Just a guess, but your 2.2.12 kernel wouldn't happen to be the one that
came with Red Hat 6.1 by any chance?

Red Hat fairly extensively patches the kernels it ships (including the
source tree on its CD). Among other things, it includes the newer RAID
stuff. I believe several other vendors (not just the Red Hat and
derivatives) also customize their shipped kernels a bit. (Wouldn't be
completely shocked if Ingo's latency stuff shows up in a distribution.
:)

Trying getting the 0.90.0 patch for 2.2.16 and applying it. I don't
mess with it personally, but this might help:

http://www.linuxvoodoo.com/drivers/drives/raid/Software-RAID-HOWTO-1.html

Rob

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Adam J. Richter: "2.4.0-test3: undefined references due to 64 bit arithmetic"
• Previous message: willy@thepuffingroup.com: "Re: why is trampoline.S code copied for each cpu?"
• Maybe in reply to: Robert Dale: "RAID1 broken 2.2.12 -> 2.2.16??"
• Next in thread: Khimenko Victor: "Re: RAID1 broken 2.2.12 -> 2.2.16??"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST