From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:43:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:43:33 -0500 Received: from [24.65.192.120] ([24.65.192.120]:53486 "EHLO webber.adilger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:43:31 -0500 From: Andreas Dilger Message-Id: <200101130143.f0D1hNF19829@webber.adilger.net> Subject: Re: *** ANNOUNCEMENT *** LVM 0.9.1 beta1 available at www.sistina.com In-Reply-To: <20010113114507.D15915@linuxcare.com> "from Anton Blanchard at Jan 13, 2001 11:45:07 am" To: Anton Blanchard Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:43:23 -0700 (MST) CC: Mauelshagen@sistina.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-lvm@sistina.com, lvm@sistina.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL73 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. 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. It may in fact be damaging, because I don't know if any of the LVM developers even know it is there, and surely it will be out of sync... Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/