[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LBD patch and XFS problem!

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LBD patch and XFS problem!
From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:28:20 +0100
Cc: Gustavo Rincon <grincon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tony Lambert <tlambert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben McMillan <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1071525970.13290.375.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E923357F2279D411B9F500508BAEE83702A4CC3A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1071525970.13290.375.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
Eric Sandeen wrote:

On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:46, Gustavo Rincon wrote:

Hi, I need some help with XFS and LBD patch.

Whoohoo, we've just been discussing this... :)

I was doing some testing with the linux-2.4.24-pre1+xfs + LBD patch (gotten
from <http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/patches/lbd/>)

Which LBD patch did you use?  There is no 2.4.24-pre1 LBD patch.

There may already be some problems there, the LBD patch used to make
itself known via HAVE_SECTOR_T, but that's not there anymore.  So now
the conditional code in XFS for LBD doesn't work, and xfs has no way to
know that LBD is present.  Check your LBD patch for a definition of

We're probably going to remove all the LBD bits from 2.4 xfs, and push
the changes into Peter's patch, since xfs is now in 2.4.24 - I'll try to
get an updated patch to him soon.

In the meantime, you can probably fix things up by looking for
conditionals in XFS, and making them always true (either by removing the
tests, or defining it yourself in, say, xfs_linux.h)

That's just off the top of my head, no promises.

Until that's fixed, I'm not inclined to dig through all the stacks
posted below.  :)


Or simply add -DHAVE_SECTOR_T to the Makefile ...

// Stefan

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