RAID SB 1.x autodetection

RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Jan Engelhardt]

Hi,


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...


	Jan
-- 

Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Nix]

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?

-- 
`On a scale of one to ten of usefulness, BBC BASIC was several points ahead
 of the competition, scoring a relatively respectable zero.' --- Peter Corlett

Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Bill Davidsen]

Nix 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.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Jan Engelhardt]

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.


	Jan
-- 

Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Nix]

On 30 May 2007, Bill Davidsen stated:

> Nix 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.

Allow me to rephrase: the kernel build system *can* do that for you ;)
that is, it can build a gzipped cpio archive from components located
anywhere on the filesystem or arbitrary source located under usr/.

-- 
`On a scale of one to ten of usefulness, BBC BASIC was several points ahead
 of the competition, scoring a relatively respectable zero.' --- Peter Corlett

Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Bill Davidsen]

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 <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Jan Engelhardt]

On May 31 2007 09:00, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> > 
>> 
>> 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,

I like highly modularized systems. And that requires an initramfs
to load all the required modules.


	Jan
-- 

Re: RAID SB 1.x autodetection

[Bill Davidsen]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On May 31 2007 09:00, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>   
>>> 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,
>>     
>
> I like highly modularized systems. And that requires an initramfs
> to load all the required modules.
>
>   

And do you find the Fedora is the only distribution which is modular? 
I'm simply calling attention to the problem being general, not something 
which works on everything but Fedora. I generally have to diddle the 
initram a bit to get mdadm in, nbd module, and the video and framebuffer 
modules for the system. I'd like to have a "add these" file the make can 
read, but I can cope with scripts to do it after the install.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979