Re: LVM 1.0 release decision

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:19:13PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
> Andrea Arcangeli writes:
>  > you _must_ know very well what the mainteinance of that code means ;).
> 
> Which is why I added the facility by which such ioctl conversions can
> be registered at runtime by the subsystem/driver itself.

Which no one single piece of common code is using yet in 2.4.5pre1 so
right now (2.4.5pre1) you must be doing the mainteinance yourself the
old way.

But I certainly agree that it is promising and that in the future
de-localizing the 32bit wrappers is a good thing so at least people will
see this code when they break it while changing the common code ;).

> I'm already planning on doing this, but it is a 2.5.x project.
> Dave Mosberger agrees with this as has anyone else I've mentioned
> the idea to, so consider it basically done in 2.5.x sometime.

Nice to hear that, when you do that please keep patches@x86-64.org in
CC so we follow it.

After we change the wrapper mechanism by avoiding the mainteinance work by
de-localizing the wrappers and after we share the wrapper logic as well, it
will be a _real_ pleasure to support the lvm ioctl from 32bit userland on
x86-64 too indeed and then it will be a worthwhile effort to support
those ioctl.

Thanks,
Andrea