From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:51:18 +0000 From: Patrick Caulfield Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Re: *** ANNOUNCEMENT *** LVM 0.9.1 beta1 available at www.sistina.com Message-ID: <20010116085117.A696@tykepenguin.com> References: <20010113114507.D15915@linuxcare.com> <200101130143.f0D1hNF19829@webber.adilger.net> <20010113170616.B22699@caldera.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010113170616.B22699@caldera.de>; from hch@ns.caldera.de on Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 05:06:16PM +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, Anton Blanchard , Mauelshagen@sistina.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.orglvm@sistina.com 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: > > Anton, you write: > > > Have a look at 2.4, arch/sparc64/kernel/ioctl32.c > > > > Yuk. > > > > > 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. 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 ! > > What is the reason for all this? Alignment/wordsize/other? If you look > > at the IOP10 code, much of the in-core data structs were changed to int > > or long, so this sparc code may not be necessary. > > The longs are the biggest problem AFAICS. > long is 64bit on sparc64 and 32bit on sparc32... There are still a few ulong members in lvm.h, they should be uint32_t patrick