From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1QHhKb-00071P-PC for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 15:01:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58249) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhKa-00070V-3o for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 15:01:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhKZ-0002W2-5z for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 15:01:52 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]:52560) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhKY-0002Vw-Pp for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 15:01:51 -0400 Received: from smtp07.web.de ( [172.20.5.215]) by fmmailgate03.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0E918E0205E; Wed, 4 May 2011 21:01:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [78.43.204.177] (helo=frosties.localnet) by smtp07.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.110 #2) id 1QHhKX-0006LI-00; Wed, 04 May 2011 21:01:49 +0200 Received: from mrvn by frosties.localnet with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QHhKW-00067P-Oi; Wed, 04 May 2011 21:01:48 +0200 From: Goswin von Brederlow To: The development of GNU GRUB Subject: Re: Raid5 regression In-Reply-To: <4DC19CD9.20702@cfl.rr.com> (Phillip Susi's message of "Wed, 04 May 2011 14:37:13 -0400") References: <4DC0124A.7010508@cfl.rr.com> <4DC067F1.4060901@cfl.rr.com> <871v0ebtfn.fsf@frosties.localnet> <4DC1597C.1040507@cfl.rr.com> <4DC16C3B.5000800@cfl.rr.com> <4DC16F14.1040505@gmail.com> <4DC19CD9.20702@cfl.rr.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux, no MULE) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 21:01:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87k4e61e8z.fsf@frosties.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de X-Sender: goswin-v-b@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/HAzOXerq0DZtMFUvXee0LaEcdlWTey2Sqslif hwLSzXPIgi57PR/zXmVaOt6rrvTkkL4GAhP6Kh1kmsE5FLHcly qVeOsc3vg= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-Received-From: 217.72.192.234 Cc: Vladimir '-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 19:01:53 -0000 Phillip Susi writes: > On 5/4/2011 11:21 AM, Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >> Does it happen with grub-fstest ? Some BIOSes are known to chop away >> some sectors in the end of disk. > > That seems to be what is going on. I went back to the Maverick > version of grub and it gets no complaints, until I set debug=3Draid. > Then I can see the same type of messages about the duplicate detection. > > Comparing the two versions of raid.c, it looks like the old version > just made the debug print when it found the duplicate superblock, and > then carried on, replacing the previously found device. The new > version of insert_array() returns a grub_error(). > > So the net result is that even though it always was detecting the > superblock on both the whole disk and on the partition, it used to let > the one found on the partition supersede so everything worked, but now > it keeps the one on the whole disk and so things break. > > How should this conflict be resolved? I would think that the > partition should take precedence like it used to. Unless the raid is partitioned and then the reverse is needed. MfG Goswin