Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*labels\s+resolved\s+\(was\s+Re\:\s+XFS\s+volume\s+labels\)\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:06:10 -0500
hi Ed, [CC'd to linux-xfs in case others are bitten by this] No worries - good to see the problem resolved. I'd say thats unlikely, but its not really my area. I guess your best bet is to let the ind
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00115.html (11,779 bytes)

2. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:41:05 -0500
devfs fixes several evilness-es in the way linux handles devices: As the number of attached devices increases so does the management of said devices. We would like to know now devfs is working now be
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00121.html (12,946 bytes)

3. RE: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: "Juha Saarinen" <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:08:01 +1200
Just out of curiosity (missed the first bit of this thread), are there any known issues with XFS and devfs? -- Juha
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00124.html (9,395 bytes)

4. RE: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 05 Apr 2001 00:14:06 -0500
No - although there has been plenty of devfs discussion on this list it has all been related to the system installers which didn't quite set up a devfs-enabled system transparently. The xfs filesyste
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00125.html (9,717 bytes)

5. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:12:25 -0500
As far as XFS is concerned no, it doesn't even know the difference. A dev just a major and minor number as far as XFS is concerned. The big win with devfs is device names do NOT move when other devic
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00126.html (10,246 bytes)

6. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:00:44 -0400
My biggest problem is that devfs completely breaks module load-on-open. I have XFree86 set up to run on matroxfb, and with devfs enabled, its attempt to open /dev/fb0 returns ENOENT or some such inst
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00127.html (11,521 bytes)

7. RE: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: "Juha Saarinen" <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:08:49 +1200
Hmmm... yes, haven't been able to fix an annoying devfs /dev/dsp permissions (?) problem myself, which means that only root has sound card access. :-\ -- Juha
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00128.html (9,423 bytes)

8. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: Russel Ingram <ringram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:28:47 -0600 (MDT)
Just my $0.02... There is really not a problem on any of the issues that have been mentioned here (on the list) with devfs. The problems are more about knowing how to configure devfsd and module mana
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00159.html (12,063 bytes)

9. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: Ed McKenzie <eem12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05 Apr 2001 13:45:02 -0400
I had already done this, and it didn't work. I encountered a similar issue before, and worked out with rgooch that it was a devfsd bug. That was awhile back, so this may be a different issue entirel
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00160.html (10,038 bytes)

10. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:58:54 -0400
Actually any info that helps us ship devfs less painfully is welcome. If devfsd.config needs fixing then we can do that before the next rpm release. -- Russell Cattelan -- Digital Elves inc. -- Curre
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00163.html (10,379 bytes)

11. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: Tom Duffy <tduffy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
this is not entirely true...you can enable module autoloading by adding the folowing line to your /etc/devfsd.conf LOOKUP .* MODLOAD and if you want the /dev/cdrom link, add the following line LOOKU
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00212.html (9,357 bytes)

12. labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: x)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:06:10 -0500
hi Ed, [CC'd to linux-xfs in case others are bitten by this] No worries - good to see the problem resolved. I'd say thats unlikely, but its not really my area. I guess your best bet is to let the ind
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00797.html (11,779 bytes)

13. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:41:05 -0500
devfs fixes several evilness-es in the way linux handles devices: As the number of attached devices increases so does the management of said devices. We would like to know now devfs is working now be
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00803.html (12,946 bytes)

14. RE: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: xx
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:08:01 +1200
Just out of curiosity (missed the first bit of this thread), are there any known issues with XFS and devfs? -- Juha
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00806.html (9,395 bytes)

15. RE: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: 05 Apr 2001 00:14:06 -0500
No - although there has been plenty of devfs discussion on this list it has all been related to the system installers which didn't quite set up a devfs-enabled system transparently. The xfs filesyste
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00807.html (9,717 bytes)

16. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:12:25 -0500
As far as XFS is concerned no, it doesn't even know the difference. A dev just a major and minor number as far as XFS is concerned. The big win with devfs is device names do NOT move when other devic
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00808.html (10,246 bytes)

17. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: xx
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:00:44 -0400
My biggest problem is that devfs completely breaks module load-on-open. I have XFree86 set up to run on matroxfb, and with devfs enabled, its attempt to open /dev/fb0 returns ENOENT or some such inst
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00809.html (11,521 bytes)

18. RE: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:08:49 +1200
Hmmm... yes, haven't been able to fix an annoying devfs /dev/dsp permissions (?) problem myself, which means that only root has sound card access. :-\ -- Juha
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00810.html (9,423 bytes)

19. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:28:47 -0600 (MDT)
Just my $0.02... There is really not a problem on any of the issues that have been mentioned here (on the list) with devfs. The problems are more about knowing how to configure devfsd and module mana
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00841.html (12,063 bytes)

20. Re: labels resolved (was Re: XFS volume labels) (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: 05 Apr 2001 13:45:02 -0400
I had already done this, and it didn't work. I encountered a similar issue before, and worked out with rgooch that it was a devfsd bug. That was awhile back, so this may be a different issue entirel
/archives/xfs/2001-04/msg00842.html (10,038 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu