From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:34:57 +0000 From: "Heinz J. Mauelshagen" Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] typo in CVS: LVM/kernel/lvm.c Message-ID: <20010507103457.C25752@sistina.com> References: <20010506101133.A642@66bassett.freeserve.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20010506101133.A642@66bassett.freeserve.co.uk>; from thornber@btconnect.com on Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:11:33AM +0100 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:11:33AM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 11:24:43PM +0200, Gergely Tamas wrote: > > Hi! > > > > There is a typo in CVS:LVM/kernel/lvm.c > > > > Gergely > > Yes, I just looked at cvs, you're right. Thanks. > > Heinz & Patrick what are you playing at !? > > lvm.c revision 1.10 > ------------------- > > o why did you feel the need to change the name of __update_hardblocksize ? > Just to adopt the new naming in > 2.4.3 > o why change the name of the max_hardblocksize variable. Same as above. > > o you've duplicated ~10 lines of code instead of putting them into a seperate > function such as: No, just added the (wrong) version check and function call. > > static inline ulong _get_hard_block_size(kdev_t dev) { > etc. > } I don't mind. > > o The code has a typo 'get_hardbsect_size' from which we can conclude that it > was *never* compiled for a kernel < 2.4.4 Oops, my fault ;-) > > o The version check itself is wrong. > > It looks to me like a botched search and replace without subsequent > testing, or even a cvs diff before checkin. May be... ;-) > > lvm.c revision 1.11 > ------------------- > > o typo still there, it can't have been tested. > > lvm.c revision 1.12 > ------------------- > > Patrick, you correctly fix most of the remaining mistakes apart from > the version number. But what are all the other code changes that have > slipped in ? They aren't mentioned in the checkin message, are they > meant to be there ? > > - Joe > > > > > > > --- LVM/kernel/lvm.c.orig Thu May 3 15:37:19 2001 > > +++ LVM/kernel/lvm.c Sat May 5 23:01:22 2001 > > @@ -1879,7 +1879,7 @@ > > int max_hardsectsize = 0, hardsectsize; > > > > for (le = 0; le < lv->lv_allocated_le; le++) { > > -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE <= KERNEL_VERSION ( 2, 4, 4) > > +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE <= KERNEL_VERSION ( 2, 4, 3) > > hardsectsize = get_hardblocksize(lv->lv_current_pe[le].dev); > > #else > > hardsectsize = get_hardsect_size(lv->lv_current_pe[le].dev); > > @@ -1892,7 +1892,7 @@ > > > > if (lv->lv_access & LV_SNAPSHOT) { > > for (e = 0; e < lv->lv_remap_end; e++) { > > -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE <= KERNEL_VERSION ( 2, 4, 4) > > +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE <= KERNEL_VERSION ( 2, 4, 3) > > hardsectsize = get_hardblocksize( lv->lv_block_exception[e].rdev_new); > > #else > > hardsectsize = get_hardsect_size( lv->lv_block_exception[e].rdev_new); > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-lvm mailing list > > linux-lvm@sistina.com > > http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm > _______________________________________________ > linux-lvm mailing list > linux-lvm@sistina.com > http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm -- Regards, Heinz -- The LVM Guy -- *** Software bugs are stupid. Nevertheless it needs not so stupid people to solve them *** =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Heinz Mauelshagen Sistina Software Inc. Senior Consultant/Developer Am Sonnenhang 11 56242 Marienrachdorf Germany Mauelshagen@Sistina.com +49 2626 141200 FAX 924446 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-