From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 04:50:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 04:50:04 -0400 Received: from pc-62-31-74-121-ed.blueyonder.co.uk ([62.31.74.121]:50048 "EHLO sisko.scot.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 04:50:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:49:48 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Jon Hedlund , sct@redhat.com, akpm@zip.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.2 kernel - Ext3 & Raid patches Message-ID: <20020523094948.A2462@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3CEA7866.23557.390B7FFC@localhost> <20020523011144.GA4006@matchmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 06:11:44PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 04:40:06PM -0500, Jon Hedlund wrote: > > 2. What is the "proper" fix for the patch collision between the raid > > patch and the ext3 patch in /include/linux/fs.h? > > Use 2.4. Actually, you just need to renumber one of the conflicting #defines to something unused, and it will work fine. Soft raid0 or linear mode will work quite happily with ext3 on 2.2 after you do that, it's only the resync after a crash that you get with raid1 or raid5 that is dangerous. Cheers, Stephen