xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: kernel patch fail with LVM

To: <rocky_lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: kernel patch fail with LVM
From: <roberto@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:08:20 +0100 (CET)
Cc: <nathans@xxxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <006d01c2f433$545bffa0$c70aa8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <002401c2f418$163e4f90$c70aa8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030327061815.GG5658@frodo> <006d01c2f433$545bffa0$c70aa8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
I discover the following:

LVM 1.0.7 patch:
 modifies file fs/buffer.c:
     add function int fsync_dev_lockfs(kdev_t dev)
     the function use macro DQUOT_SYNC(dev);

XFS 1.2 patch:
 modifies file fs/buffer.c:
   modifies function int fsync_super(struct super_block *sb)
     from DQUOT_SYNC(dev) --> to DQUOT_SYNC_SB(sb);

   modifies function int fsync_dev(kdev_t dev)
     from DQUOT_SYNC(dev) -->  DQUOT_SYNC_DEV(dev);

   unmodified function int fsync_dev_lockfs(kdev_t dev) (becouse is not
know  to xfs patch)
     still use DQUOT_SYNC(dev);

I've tried to change file fs/buffer.c:
     from DQUOT_SYNC(dev) --> to DQUOT_SYNC_DEV(dev);
   I used *_DEV becouse it is called on kdev_t variable (but really I do
not known nothing about these function)

The compile was successfull, but is there anybody that can test it work?

I'll wait for comments...

Bye Roberto

> Hi Nathan
>
> Thank you for the respone!  .... :)
>
> Did you mean that I've to change the LVM patch?
> it sound a big trouble to me (beginner)...  but I'll try.... : P
>
> I've also found the new 2.4.20 patch. (Mar. 18)
> is that the release stable patch file?
>
> Have a nice day ^_^
>
> Rocky
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Rocky Lee" <rocky_lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:18 PM
> Subject: Re: kernel patch fail with LVM
>>
>> We have Jan Kara's 32 bit quota patches in our tree, because
>> we make use of some quota extensions they provide.  The LVM
>> patch most likely is just for a stock-standard 2.4.20, which
>> does not have these patches.
>>
>> So, Jan's patches contain a change which removes DQUOT_SYNC
>> and instead splits the functionality into a DQUOT_SYNC_DEV
>> and a DQUOT_SYNC_SB - you'll need to change the code (looks
>> like fsync_dev_lockfs needs this change) to make use of one
>> of these new macros.
>>
>> cheers.
>>
>> --
>> Nathan
>>
>>


Attachment: buffer-orig-2419.c.gz
Description: Binary data

Attachment: buffer-xfs12-lvm107.c.gz
Description: Binary data

Attachment: buffer-xfs12-lvm107-fixed.c.gz
Description: Binary data

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>