"Greg A. Woods" writes:
> [ On Monday, March 14, 2005 at 09:37:39 (-0600), Greg Oster wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: anyone know if there's a fix for this "malloc with held simple
> _lock" in RAIDframe bug yet? 
> >
> > The change in rev 1.55 may fix this problem, but IIRC there were 
> > quite a few more changes that had to be made before all (?) of the 
> > locking issues were sorted out.  (You'll need at least 1.64 and 1.65 
> > for this file, and probably a whole mess of other changes for other 
> > files in RAIDframeland)
> > 
> > If you're looking for "the best RAIDframe", might I recommend you 
> > use 2.0? :)  (The code in 2.0 is MUCH better than what shipped in 
> > 1.6.x)
> 
> I'm not in any way prepared to upgrade to 2.0 yet, but using the
> RAIDframe code from 2.0 or -current does seem to be a most excellent
> idea.
> 
> I've done a very quick (enough to get it to compile cleanly) backport of
> yesterday's -current RAIDframe code and it gets me a heck of a lot
> further along:
[snip]
> 
> In fact that's probably exactly where it should be (since /dev/sd9e does
> not exist as I'm in the first steps of setting up the root mirror :-)

If you build a new 'raidctl' (actually... you might not need one, but 
whatever) then you can use the word 'absent' as a "disk does not 
exist" place-holder.

> Once I get to the poing of booting from the mirrored root then I'll send
> you my diffs 

Ok.  I suspect the diffs will be quite large -- a lot of stuff has 
changed.  Might be good to keep them around in case other folks are 
interested in them, but I'm not sure I'd want to request a pullup of 
that size for 1.6.x :-}  (The releng folks would probably shoot me :) )

> (and if I don't get that far I'll be asking for help! :-)

Sure...  especially for easy stuff ;)

Later...

Greg Oster