Re: 13.0-CURRENT r356767 wanted ZFS

From: David Wolfskill <david_at_catwhisker.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:26:39 -0800
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:18:41AM +0000, Clay Daniels wrote:
> 13.0-CURRENT r356767 would not take NO for an answer, and kept up a loop
> until I gave up trying to use UFS. No big deal, seems to work fine...
> 
> Clay
> ....

Err...?  Is there some additional context that I'm missing?

I've been tracking head daily for ... longer than I really want to
think about, including on at least one system that has no ZFS file
systems; the last couple of smoke-tests were at:

FreeBSD g1-53.catwhisker.org 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #7 r356758M/356758: Wed Jan 15 03:49:49 PST 2020     root_at_g1-53.catwhisker.org:/common/S4/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/CANARY  amd64 1300076 1300076

and

FreeBSD g1-53.catwhisker.org 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #8 r356786M/356787: Thu Jan 16 03:56:45 PST 2020     root_at_g1-53.catwhisker.org:/common/S4/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/CANARY  amd64 1300076 1300076

It is not clear to me at what point anything might have a chance
to indicate that it "wanted ZFS" and request an action.

Peace,
david
-- 
David H. Wolfskill				david_at_catwhisker.org
At least Trump can count on McConnell and Putin to "have his back."
And the rest of us can consider what that means about each of them.

See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.

Received on Thu Jan 16 2020 - 23:26:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:22 UTC