Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ken Moffat
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 7:43 pm

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:15:07PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
 My "server" has a consumer-grade desktop amd64 mobo, with all that
implies about cheap hardware and strange/misleading bios options.
It also has an add-in dual IDE card with the main data on raid1.
It's set to ide=reverse, without that it doesn't boot (the add-ins
are IDE, system drive is SATA, so I guess it probably tries to boot
from the DVD - it's been a long time since it bit me and I don't
remember the full details.

 That was how it was set for 2.6.18.6, and how it now boots from
2.6.22.18.  I think at one time the order of the interfaces might
have been different.  Certainly, I carry forward a fallback without
ide=reverse in lilo.conf, just in case the disks move on my next
kernel upgrade.

 What a distro selects should cover most of that distro's users, but
that is not anywhere near providing 100% coverage for *all* the
hardware out there.  Also, you can force your users to e.g. mount by
label.  So far, that hasn't been forced on me, and I really hate
having to reboot that box :)

Ken
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
"ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Greg KH, (Tue Feb 12, 5:15 pm)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Tue Feb 12, 6:41 pm)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Ken Moffat, (Tue Feb 12, 7:43 pm)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Wed Feb 13, 2:32 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:06 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Michael Ellerman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:16 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Wed Feb 13, 5:34 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:46 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Rene Herman, (Wed Feb 13, 5:57 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Ken Moffat, (Wed Feb 13, 8:32 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Wed Feb 13, 10:47 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Wed Feb 13, 3:20 pm)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Michael Ellerman, (Wed Feb 13, 3:39 pm)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Wed Feb 13, 5:02 pm)
Re: [discuss] pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary n ..., Bartlomiej Zolnierki ..., (Thu Feb 14, 5:11 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Sergei Shtylyov, (Thu Feb 14, 6:09 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Bill Davidsen, (Thu Feb 14, 10:16 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Fri Feb 15, 12:48 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Feb 15, 6:58 am)
Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?, Muli Ben-Yehuda, (Sun Feb 17, 12:53 am)
Re: "ide=reverse" do we still need this?, Ken Moffat, (Tue Feb 19, 8:08 am)