From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Caulfield Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13 Message-ID: <20011029084424.D4182@tykepenguin.com> References: <20011026005405.A21775@sky.net> <20011026095641.C587@tykepenguin.com> <20011026213005.C928@sky.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011026213005.C928@sky.net>; from U.Wiederhold@gmx.net on Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:30:05PM +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Mon Oct 29 02:59:08 2001 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote: > * Patrick Caulfield [011026 10:56]: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote: >=20 > Two questions: > 1. Why isn=B4t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I stil= l > need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than > the older one, isn=B4t it? It just isn't :-( we've submitted (most of) it to Alan Cox and his kernel= is *much* more up-to-date than Linus'. I don't know just why the patches hav= en't been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the = VM but won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre. > 2. Should I write a bug-report to the xfs-guys? If yes, can I include > your Email, Patrick? I wouldn't like to claim it's an XFS bug as I haven't had a close look at= their patches. I do know that they include some LVM patches in their distributi= on so it's certainly worth asking them nicely to upgrade them I suppose. Feel free to quote my email..I don't think I wrote anything actionable :-= ) patrick