Re: [linux-lvm] snapshot of Reiserfs

[Patrick Caulfield <caulfield@sistina.com>]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 09:04:32AM -0500, lvm@winux.com wrote:
> Patrick Caulfield writes:
> > From: Patrick Caulfield <caulfield@sistina.com>
> > Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com
> > To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
> > Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] snapshot of Reiserfs
> > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:59:59 +0000
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:19:51PM -0500, lvm@winux.com wrote:
> > > Heinz J. Mauelshagen writes:
> > > > ... Linux Logical Volume Manager 0.9.1 Beta 5 is available now ...
> > > > ...
> > > > Please help us to stabilize for 0.9.1 ASAP and test is as much as possible!
> > > 
> > > I am using LVM 0.9.1 beta 5 on Linux 2.4.1 with Reiserfs.
> > > I have applied both of the following patches:
> > > 
> > > 0.9.1_beta5/PATCHES/lvm-0.9.1_beta5-2.4.1.patch
> > > 0.9.1_beta5/PATCHES/linux-2.4.1-VFS-lock.patch
> > > 
> > > Snapshots created when the filesystem is active cannot be mounted.
> > > If I `umount' the filesystem before creating the snapshot, all is well.
> > 
> > Did you remember to uncomment LVM_VFS_ENHANCEMENT in lvm.c ?
> > 
> > patrick
> 
> Bingo!  That was the problem!  Many thanks!
> 
> Shouldn't that change be included in the VFS-lock patch?

It complicates the order of applying them but it's a fair point.
 
> In fact, why are these separate patches?  Shouldn't they
> eventually be "the standard" and find their way into the
> stock kernel?  It's arguably the correct behavior.

That is the intension. The patch is Chris Mason's and I beleive
he is trying to get it into the kernel. Heinz emailed him about
it recently, I don't know if he has had any reply yet.

Patrick