From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:13:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:13:38 -0400 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:16944 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:13:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:13:30 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Andreas Dilger Cc: mauelshagen@sistina.com, Kurt Garloff , linux-lvm@sistina.com, lvm-devel@sistina.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, sistina@sistina.com, mge@sistina.com Subject: Re: *** ANNOUNCEMENT *** LVM 1.0 available at www.sistina.com Message-ID: <20010815231330.B27003@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010815185005.A32239@sistina.com> <200108151755.f7FHtmTH013535@webber.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200108151755.f7FHtmTH013535@webber.adilger.int>; from adilger@turbolinux.com on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 11:55:48AM -0600 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 11:55:48AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > Saying you "need" the old versions of the installed tools to read the > on disk data is bogus, IMNSHO. You could easily have a flag which says > "calculate the PE offsets using the old algorithm or the new algorithm". Definitely. This is what I was asking for. That would be optimal. > Also, since this bug exists only for a limited number of users (only a > subset of users who created volumes with beta 5 and beta 6), it causes > grief for anyone who is NOT affected by the bug. Agreed. I understand that here I am biased but I don't care much about that possible misalignment too because we never shipped a beta[56]. > Well, that is the future, and should not impact users of 2.4.x kernels. > Just like we found an acceptable workaround to the (incompatible) IOP 11 > change (which was later reverted), it is possible to find an acceptable > workaround for the new incompatible change. Sadly, it is no longer my Agreed. Andrea