Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 18:34:22 -0500 From: Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@druber.com> To: Stefan Eggers <seggers@semyam.dinoco.de> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi@video-collage.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, seggers@semyam.dinoco.de Subject: Re: same swap twice (was Re: The infamous dying daemons bug) Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981107183422.009a3c40@mail.kersur.net> In-Reply-To: <199811072301.AAA17493@semyam.dinoco.de> References: <Your message of "Sat, 07 Nov 1998 15:51:17 EST." <3.0.5.32.19981107155117.00979370@mail.kersur.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:01 AM 11/8/98 +0100, Stefan Eggers wrote: > >> that you can't help but screw yourself. On the other hand, I find >> it hard to believe that a simple check of "do I have block device >> N/Y active as swap currently?" can possibly be that hard. And the > >This simple check is in the code as far as I know and remember and >is in -stable, too. If not adding it were a matter of minutes. > >The trouble maker was swapping to /dev/wd0b and /dev/wd0s1b at the >same time which is a different thing as comparing major and minor >device numbers is not enough in this case. Sigh. I wasn't aware of that. The problem that was complained about (at least what I heard, which aren't always the same :]) was "I added the same swap device twice and hosed my system"). >It's the old compatibility slice thing which makes this imperfect. >How should swapon know that your /dev/wd0b is on the same disk space >as /dev/wd0s1b? They have different minor numbers after all and >that's what we can check. Once we give the compatibility slice >eternal rest we don't have his problem anymore. > >> fact that whoever closed the PR did so without apparently thinking >> for more than 10 seconds about this is not real encouraging. > >The compatibility slice thing will go away as far as I know and the >first step was also done in -stable by deamding the full name for >these partitions in the fstab. > >Is it worth to add support for catching a rather obscure mistake >which will soon not be possible anymore anyway? I can understand >that nobody wants to bother with *that* as it is pretty much a waste >of time and solves itself hopefully soon. Okay, I can dig that. It would be nice if someone had made this as clear as you just did (unless they did, and the person who started this thread wasn't clear about it). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19981107183422.009a3c40>