On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 10:37, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > underlying kernel - or have you merged 1.2.0 up to 2.4.20-19.9?
>
> Yes, the atrpms kernels track latest RH errata and had (up to now) XFS
> 1.2.0.
Ah, but I'm sure in your latest errata kernel, patch 1300 was still in
place, and this takes out O_DIRECT very early.
> Hm, worth considering it for the 2.4.20 series (the actual errata
> kernels). Latest rawhide/severn kernels have removed that patch. I'll
> respin a test kernel with O_DIRECT disabled.
yes, they have different O_DIRECT handling now, actually a fix for a
security problem I think.
> Yes, for instance. Delivering a kernel rpm does not guarantee that
> people will read any accompanying documentation. So the next best stab
> to the problem would be to build rpm without O_DIRECT support. Then
> the kernel rpm would have to depend on a capability provided by the
> fixed rpm rpm (yes, it's double ;).
>
> But this opens a pit without an end ... :(
Still not following... :) But for your kernels, I'd leave patch 1300 in
place, disabling O_DIRECT entirely. This is no worse than the original
RH kernel. Yes, it cripples XFS, but it's probably the simplest path.
-Eric
--
Eric Sandeen [C]XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc. 651-683-3102
|