From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:00:10 -0400 Message-ID: <465EC6DA.6020102@tmr.com> References: <877iqqul7a.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <465DE009.7060202@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Nix , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On May 30 2007 16:35, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >>> On 29 May 2007, Jan Engelhardt uttered the following: >>> >>>> from your post at >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-raid@vger.kernel.org/msg07384.html I >>>> read that autodetecting arrays with a 1.x superblock is currently >>>> impossible. Does it at least work to force the kernel to always assume >>>> a 1.x sb? There are some 'broken' distros out there that still don't >>>> use mdadm in initramfs, and recreating the initramfs each time is a >>>> bit cumbersome... >>>> >>> The kernel build system should be able to do that for you, shouldn't it? >>> >>> >> That would be an improvement, yes. >> > > Hardly, with all the Fedora specific cruft. Anyway, there was a > simple patch posted in RH bugzilla, so I've gone with that. > I'm not sure what Fedora has to do with it, it is generally useful to all distributions. What I had in mind was a make target, so that instead of "install" as target, you could have "install_mdadm" in the Makefile. Or "mdadm_install" to be consistent with "modules_install" perhaps. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979