grub-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] change grub_print_error to use stderr for the utils


From: Felix Zielcke
Subject: Re: [RFC] change grub_print_error to use stderr for the utils
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:58:44 +0200

Am Sonntag, den 17.08.2008, 18:37 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> 
> If I understood correctly, nvidia's is a _software_ RAID solution which is
> implemented in Linux, in BIOS and in Windows (via non-native drivers), and
> is marketed as if it were hardware RAID.

Bah normally I even say myself to this `fake hardware RAID'.
But yes, this is neither a real hardware RAID controller nor like real
software RAID like mdraid on Linux.

> Anyway, this doesn't answer the question on where is this "out of disk"
> error issued, and why.

This is just from grub-probe -vv / where / is even on my IDE disk.

/home/fz/grub/grub2-1.96+20080816/kern/disk.c:368: Reading `hd1,2'...
/home/fz/grub/grub2-1.96+20080816/kern/disk.c:375: Read out of range:
sector 0x100f9b45 (out of disk).
/home/fz/grub/grub2-1.96+20080816/kern/disk.c:312: Closing `hd1,2'.
/home/fz/grub/grub2-1.96+20080816/partmap/pc.c:143: partition 2: flag
0x0, type 0x0, start 0x0, len 0x0
/home/fz/grub/grub2-1.96+20080816/partmap/pc.c:143: partition 3: flag
0x0, type 0x0, start 0x0, len 0x0
/home/fz/grub/grub2-1.96+20080816/kern/disk.c:312: Closing `hd1'.
error: out of disk

> > Oh I should have said in my case.
> > The BIOS presents GRUB only one (hd0) for the combined 2 disks.
> 
> Ah, I see.  Sounds like a very nasty situation.  We'll probably need special
> logic at install time to sort this out?  At least, just to skip raid.mod
> inclussion and use UUIDs for the rest.

Yes not very easy.

> Anyway, how is this related to the "out of disk" error?

The partiton table is for both disks.
It says there are 160 GB, but grub-probe sees only 2 80 GB one.

> > error: out of disk
> > Installation finished. No error reported.
> 
> This "No error reported" seems to assume non-critical errors aren't
> possible.  How about we remove that part of the message?

Yes, would be at least better and I don't have yet a different idea.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]