[linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[Ulrich Wiederhold]

Hello,
I untared 2.4.13, applied the official xfs patch, then the fresh created
lvm patch.

No mistakes.
Then I configured the kernel and did a "make dep clean bzImage" which
fails with this error msg (the last lines):
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_init':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x86): undefined reference to `lvm_init_fs'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_cleanup':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x1bc): undefined reference to `lvm_fin_fs'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_vg_create':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x19f6): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_create_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_vg_rename':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x1f4c): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_remove_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x20fb): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_create_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_vg_remove':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2159): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_remove_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_pv_create':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2365): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_create_pv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_pv_remove':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x23a4): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_remove_pv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_lv_create':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2d44): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_create_lv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_lv_remove':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2e43): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_remove_lv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_lv_rename':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x3d5a): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_remove_lv'
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x3d7d): undefined reference to
`lvm_fs_create_lv'
make[1]: *** [kallsyms] Fehler 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux'
make: *** [vmlinux] Fehler 2

Any ideas?

Thanks
Uli

-- 
'The box said, 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so i installed Linux - TKK 5

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[Patrick Caulfield]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> Hello,
> I untared 2.4.13, applied the official xfs patch, then the fresh created
> lvm patch.
> 
> No mistakes.

The XFS patch removes some essential LVM bits from the Makefile I think (maybe
it has an old LVM in there or something)

Edit drivers/md/Makefile and change the lvm-mod-objs line to read:

lvm-mod-objs    := lvm.o lvm-snap.o lvm-fs.o



patrick

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[Ulrich Wiederhold]

* Patrick Caulfield <caulfield@sistina.com> [011026 10:56]:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I untared 2.4.13, applied the official xfs patch, then the fresh created
> > lvm patch.
> > 
> > No mistakes.
> 
> The XFS patch removes some essential LVM bits from the Makefile I think (maybe
> it has an old LVM in there or something)
> 
> Edit drivers/md/Makefile and change the lvm-mod-objs line to read:
> 
> lvm-mod-objs    := lvm.o lvm-snap.o lvm-fs.o
> 
Hello,
thanks again.
I did:
* untar the kernel 2.4.13
* patched with xfs
* created lvm-patch
* patched with lvm
* changed the line as described above
* configured the kernel
* built the kernel

This won´t work in another order, e.g. built the lvmpatch with a
vanilla-kernel or apply the lvm patch first! I always got errors doing
this.

Two questions:
1. Why isn´t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still
need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than
the older one, isn´t it?
2. Should I write a bug-report to the xfs-guys? If yes, can I include
your Email, Patrick?

Regards
Uli


-- 
'The box said, 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so i installed Linux - TKK 5

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[Patrick Caulfield]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> * Patrick Caulfield <caulfield@sistina.com> [011026 10:56]:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> 
> Two questions:
> 1. Why isn´t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still
> need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than
> the older one, isn´t 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 haven'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 distribution 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

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[Ulrich Wiederhold]

Hello,
* Patrick Caulfield <caulfield@sistina.com> [011029 09:44]:
> 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 haven't
> been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the VM but
> won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre.

I would like to run an ac-Kernel, but I could get it patched with xfs
(xfs doesn´t support ac-kernels).

> > 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 distribution 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 :-)
Ok.
:)
I will do this.

Uli

-- 
'The box said, 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so i installed Linux - TKK 5

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[GCS]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 11:05:20AM +0100, Ulrich Wiederhold <U.Wiederhold@gmx.net> wrote:
> I will do this.
 I can answer it too: the CVS version is upgraded to 2.4.14pre3, and LVM
reverted to Linus' one. They said the patch from Sistina can be applied to
it.
GCS

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

[Paul Dickson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3698 bytes --]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:44:24 +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> > * Patrick Caulfield <caulfield@sistina.com> [011026 10:56]:
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> > 
> > Two questions:
> > 1. Why isn�t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still
> > need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than
> > the older one, isn�t 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 haven't
> been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the VM but
> won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre.

Did Linus say why?

I ask this because Linus' submission policy is that you send patches to
him repeatedly (ever two or three weeks) until he acknowledges them. 
Linus frequently gets behind in his E-mail, so he just deletes everything
he hasn't seen.

I have included below a message from Linus which I saved about sending
patches to him.

	-Paul



On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote to LKML:

> Most importantly, when sending patches to me:
> 
>  - specify clearly that you really want to see them in the standard
>    kernel, and why. I occasionally get patches that just say "this is a
>    good idea". I don't apply them. Especially if they are cc'd to somebody
>    else too, in which case I pretty much assume that it's a RFC, not a
>    "real patch".
> 
>  - do NOT send patches in attachements. Send one patch per mail, in
>    clear-text under your message, so that I can easily see the patch and
>    decide then-and-there whether it looks ok. And if it doesn't look ok,
>    and I do a "reply", the patch gets included in the reply so that I can
>    point out which part of the patch I dislike.
> 
>    Don't worry about sending me five emails. That's FINE. I much prefer
>    seeing five consecutive emails from the same person with five distinct
>    subject lines and five distinct patches, than seeing one email with
>    five attachements to it.
> 
>  - if your email system is broken, and you want to send patches as
>    attachements to avoid whitspace damage, then please FIX YOUR EMAIL
>    SYSTEM INSTEAD.
> 
>  - Don't point to web-sites. If I have to move the mouse outside my email
>    xterm to work on the email, your email just got ignored.
> 
>  - Make your patches one sub-directory under the source tree you're
>    working on. In short, your patches should look like something like
> 
> 	--- clean/fs/inode.c ...
> 	+++ linux/fs/inode.c ..
> 	@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@
> 	...
> 
>    so that I can (regardless of where my source tree is) apply them
>    with "patch -p1" from my linux top directory. Then I can just do a
> 
> 	cd v2.4/linux
> 	patch -p1 < ~/multiple-emails-with-multiple-accepted-patches
> 
>    and not have to worry about three patches being based on
>    /usr/src/linux, while two others not having a path at all and being
>    individual filenames in linux/drivers/net.
> 
>  - and finally: re-send. If I had laser-eye surgery the fay you sent the
>    patches, I won't have applied them. If I took a day off and spent it
>    with the kids at the pool instead, I won't have applied them. If I
>    decided that this weekend I'm not going to read email for a change, I
>    won't have applied them.
> 
>    And when I come back to work a day or two later, I will have several
>    hundred other emails to work through. I never go backwards in my
>    emails.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]