I am working on this bug and it is a side effect of wrapping VOP_*
calls. krw meanwhile commited a fix for the bug that exposed the panic
and should make your test case happy. The underlying bug needs more
work though but I am working on it.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 06:59:00PM +0100, Andreas Bart
On 12/20/10 18:26, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
...
Can you provide the details on the exact panic you saw? Just to make sure
when an issue is reproduced we know we are working on the same problem.
Debugger
panic
sr_crypto_finish_io
sr_crypto_intr
sdstrategy
spec_strategy
VOP_STRATEGY
sr_startw
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed that the size of softraid(4) disks is one sector too large.
>
> In the following description, the native disk is sd4c (which is of type
> RAID), and the corresponding virtual softraid(4) disk will be sd5.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 08:06:33AM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 06:24:17PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 04:26:59PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > im pretty sure scsi reports the last addressable sector, as opposed to the
> > > total number
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:50:21AM +0100, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> On 12/19/10 22:28, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> ...
> >You should NEVER use 'c' partition. Amoung other things, it is
> >always set by the kernel to encompass the whole disk, everytime the
> >disklabel is read. If you restore to a
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 06:24:17PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 04:26:59PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > im pretty sure scsi reports the last addressable sector, as opposed to the
> > total number of sectors. will have a diff shortly.
>
> compiles. can someone test?
Prett
On 12/19/10 22:28, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
...
You should NEVER use 'c' partition. Amoung other things, it is
always set by the kernel to encompass the whole disk, everytime the
disklabel is read. If you restore to a different sized disk interesting
things might happen. I thought we also alwa
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 04:26:59PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> im pretty sure scsi reports the last addressable sector, as opposed to the
> total number of sectors. will have a diff shortly.
compiles. can someone test?
Index: softraid.c
===
im pretty sure scsi reports the last addressable sector, as opposed to the
total number of sectors. will have a diff shortly.
dlg
On 20/12/2010, at 2:15 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I could swear we had the sizes right but I'll have another look at this.
>
> What raid type did you test this with
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I could swear we had the sizes right but I'll have another look at this.
>
> What raid type did you test this with?
I can repro. Crypto raid.
sd0g: size 20986560 this is the real disk
sd1a: 20985952 offset 64
sd1c: 20986033
softraid
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed that the size of softraid(4) disks is one sector too large.
>
> In the following description, the native disk is sd4c (which is of type
> RAID), and the corresponding virtual softraid(4) disk will be sd5.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:51:31AM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
> On 12/19/10 11:15, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > I could swear we had the sizes right but I'll have another look at this.
> >
> > What raid type did you test this with?
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Bartelt
On 12/19/10 11:15, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I could swear we had the sizes right but I'll have another look at this.
>
> What raid type did you test this with?
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've noticed that the size of softraid(4) disks is
On 12/19/10 17:15, Marco Peereboom wrote:
I could swear we had the sizes right but I'll have another look at this.
What raid type did you test this with?
I've only tested CRYPTO, but sr_meta_native_probe() seems to be used by
all disciplines.
Try newfs /dev/rsdXc where X is a virtual softr
I could swear we had the sizes right but I'll have another look at this.
What raid type did you test this with?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:17:46PM +0100, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed that the size of softraid(4) disks is one sector too large.
>
> In the following description
Hello,
I've noticed that the size of softraid(4) disks is one sector too large.
In the following description, the native disk is sd4c (which is of type
RAID), and the corresponding virtual softraid(4) disk will be sd5. I
will assume that sd5 is of discipline CRYPTO, but the problem should be
t
16 matches
Mail list logo
