From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:10:46 -0800 From: Charles Duffy Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Re: *** ANNOUNCEMENT *** LVM 0.9.1 beta1 available at www.sistina.com Message-ID: <20010116121046.E2709@mvista.com> References: <20010113114507.D15915@linuxcare.com> <200101130143.f0D1hNF19829@webber.adilger.net> <20010113170616.B22699@caldera.de> <20010116085117.A696@tykepenguin.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KlAEzMkarCnErv5Q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010116085117.A696@tykepenguin.com>; from caulfield@sistina.com on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:51:18AM +0000 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: List-Id: To: linux-lvm@sistina.com --KlAEzMkarCnErv5Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:51:18AM +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 05:06:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 06:43:23PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > > Would it be possible to clean up the ioctl interface so we > > > > dont need such large hacks for LVM support? I can do the work > > > > but I want to be sure you guys will agree to it. >=20 > If you're prepared to do the work we'd be glad to accept the patch - > please send it to me or the list so I can check over it before > committing it. As we don't have an UltraSPARC available for testing > it's probably better done by someone who does ! I have an Ultra-1 available, presently in use as a prototyping system. It's not currently using LVM and there's no unpartitioned space on the drive, but if one of the core developers (or otherwise someone I have reason to trust) wants to try testing LVM over loopback (or something of that sort), I can provide access. I don't have the time to do testing myself, unless someone can provide a specific set of instructions (ie. the nature of an expected bug is known; the only question is its presence). Btw, I can only promise availability for about a week or so; the machine may become a production system after that time. --KlAEzMkarCnErv5Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6ZKrGr/O29KUQmJURAgJ2AKCypzVywkPVmQ2DMoMJHn4y6jZNpgCfRetI n7AsmHPukOigyCdPCZ9vTYY= =geP1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KlAEzMkarCnErv5Q--