Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I fdisk'ed hdc to divide a 15G partition into two, so as to have somewhere for SuSE 8.2 pro and Gentoo, and fdisk wrote with a
"The partition table has been altered!
Calling ioctl() to re-read partition table.
WARNING: Re-reading the partition table failed with error 16: Device or resource busy.
The kernel still uses the old table.
The new table will be used at the next reboot.
Syncing disks."
So. ( "cat /proc/partitions" confirmed this )
Then I tried "apropos ioctl", and got to doing this:
repeatedly, and the kernel /still/ wouldn't read the new partition table.
My question is HOW does one force the 2.4.x kernel to reread the partition-table?
( with the implicit
"being forced to reboot whenever changing the partition-table means non-mission-critical, as far as I can see..."
... or are we forced to use LVM instead of regular partitioning? In spite of the kernel-hackers' low opinion of the current version of LVM? )
the partition I altered wasn't mounted ( I'm not THAT stupid, usually
: D )
I do have a RAID5 array using the drive, though
( other partitions:
primary-3 and primary-4 of each drive participate in a raid5 array, all primary-3's in one, all primary-4's in another .. this way I don't have to worry about re-writing /etc/raidtab every time I re-write the partition-table to modify the logicals in the extended parition2 of any drive, see )
-sigh- it seems the arrays're going to have to be unmounted to get the kernel to be able to re-load the change in the extended-partition table... grr
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.