Subject: Re: raidframe parity: daily and before securelevel
To: rudolf <rudolf@eq.cz>
From: Greg Oster <oster@cs.usask.ca>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 05/17/2007 15:42:29
rudolf writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that /etc/rc.d/raidframeparity should be ordered before
> /etc/rc.d/securelevel - otherwise it is possible to get EPERM if the
> securelevel is raised in /etc/rc.conf and the parity might then be left
> dirty.
>
> It might be useful to test if the parity is clean from /etc/daily along
> with failed raidframe components too.
>
> What do you think? See the attached patches (made against recent netbsd-4).
The only reason a parity check should fail is if one of the
components has errors, which the "has anything failed?" check
should detect.
That said, I certainly have nothing against the changes...
Later...
Greg Oster