Well, first, anyone that somehow in someway got confused or insulted please accept my applogies. This all thing is just a big missunderstanding, and from my part. please see inline. I hope we are ok now Sujit. On 5/15/09, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 4:45 pm, Sujit Karataparambil wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Raz <raziebe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> where else ? > > > > See you were the one who has sent out the patch. Ok? Then you should > > know the reason for patch? What I had asked from Neil is an RFC Cross > > Checking the Patch. So I donot expect an Reply From You. Ok? > >>> taking care of 4k*n data sets. > >>> What I see of this patch is that it specifically checks for some sort > >>> of 4K Boundaries. > > > > > >> instead of 4K*2^n where n>=0 > >> correct and recompure IO posistion. > >>>> fprintf(stderr, Name ": invalid > >>>> chunk/rounding value: %s\n", > > > > Could you tell me how 4K*2^n is used to do the patch what ever it was > > sent for? Or > > is it that the patch is incomplete. > > > > Kindly Maintain Some sort of mailing list courtesy.Ok? Reply only when > > you are asked to. > > Ok? > > That really isn't an appropriate thing to say. If people want to > reply (politely) this questions directed at other people on a public > list, I think that is quite appropriate. In fact I value it as it > often means I don't need to reply because someone else has done > it for me. > > Now I agree that "where else" is not a very helpful reply, but I'm ok. sorry about that. i just do not understand what the problem. > not sure that the original question was crystal clear either. Maybe > there is a bit of a language barrier - I'm sure not everyone on this > list has English as their first language, yet English is the language > we use (for which I'm very thankful as I don't speak anything else). > So a little bit of patience all around would be good. > > Also it would help if explanations were a little more detailed, and > even if questions contained more detail too. > > In the case of the original patch, I'm not really sure of the point > of the patch myself. > > The text > "I do not know what is policy for mdadm patches. I would thankful for some > instructions." > > is clear enough. The answer is "send them to me" in much the same format > as the kernel patches you have seen sent by e.g. Andre Noll. > The text > "The bellow is the patch I applied to support raid0 chunk sizes 4K*n." > > confuses me as it doesn't seem add anything, it only removes. > i.e. it removes the possibility of passing a non-power-of-2 > chunk size to raid levels other than 0. lol.... patch is my mistake. patch wat not against your original code . Original mdadm.c code is: if (!optarg[0] || *c || chunk<4 || ((chunk-1)&chunk)) ... All I want is to enable the chunk fix only to raid0. This is all my mistake because i am not working under your mdadm git repository but under a private svn repository. Would you be so kind to direct me to your git's url ( there are several mdadm gits i found in google ), I will repost this fix. Thank you. raz > That might be an appropriate thing to do, but the commentary that > came with the patch doesn't say it does that, and says something > quite different, so I'm not really sure what to make of it. Which > is one of the reasons I didn't reply straight away - I wanted to give > myself time to read it again and make sure I wasn't missing anything. > > > NeilBrown > > > > > -- > > -- Sujit K M > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
