From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM 1.0.7, kernel 2.4.21 and snapshots over ext3 filesystem Message-ID: <12023-88653@sneakemail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: From: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri Jul 4 15:59:01 2003 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com C R Ritson C.R.Ritson-at-newcastle.ac.uk |LVM Mailinglist linux-lvm/Allow| wrote 45 lines: > > My bet is that you first patched the kernel for VFS-lock and > > *then* patched the kernel for LVM. This undoes (parts of) > > the VFS-lock. The reason is as follows: > That is strange - my exprience with kernel 2.4.20 and LVM 1.0.7 was as > follows: > Attempting to apply the VFS-lock patch AFTER the LVM generated patch > gives me an un-compilable tree with with unresolved reverences to > fsync_dev_lockfs and unlockfs. I have compiled quite a few kernels exactly after my cheatsheet (from at least 2.4.21-rc1 up to my currently running 2.4.21-lvm) and it works. At times I may have to hand-patch because of trivial changes to get the VFS-lock patch in, but ... that's it. > On one test machine I am running a 2.4.20 kernel in which the VFS-lock > patch was applied BEFORE the LVM patch. Here, I am taking a snapshot at > Would Heinz care to comment on these two apparently conflicting results? It MIGHT be that LVM 1.0.7 is in sync (or at least not damaging) to the VFS-lock patch for 2.4.20. I *have* had problems in the past (I tried VFS-lock and the LVM and it failed), but I cannot vouch that they are there for kernel 2.4.20/LVM 1.0.7. -Wolfgang