Dne 17.3.2012 18:31, Maxim Levitsky napsal(a):
> On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 16:12 +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>>> Dne 16.3.2012 07:28, John Mesmon napsal(a):
>>>> Block devices:
>>>> -1 smblk
>>
>> That's outside the range of valid major numbers and surely shouldn't be getting
>> exposed to userspace in /proc/devices.
>>
>> static struct mtd_blktrans_ops sm_ftl_ops = {
>> .name = "smblk",
>> .major = -1,
>>
>> Why's -1 being used?
>>
>> Alasdair
>
> Woops. I accidentally assigned it 4096 major.
> I probably thought that it will get me dynamic major number, sorry!
> Will fix soon!
>
So I've made couple experiments, and it seem that numbers printed via
/proc/devices are actually not reflecting kernel reality.
It seems that if the kernel driver uses i.e. 'major == -4290'
then cat /proc/devices shows exactly this number (-4290).
But the device physically appears with major 3902.
So obviously kernel masks 0xfff and it's using it as unsigned number.
I'll update lvm code to go with same logic - while probably giving a user
warning, the major number used for device is not correct (so they could fixed
just like in smblk case).
Also I guess kernel patch which would fix this behavior might be useful as
well, but lvm needs to work with old kernels anyway.
Zdenek
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
