From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Roeleveld" Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Support dynamic resizing of vbds Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:42:48 +0100 Message-ID: <201003221042.48885.joost@antarean.org> References: <4BA23895020000300008184F@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <201003221015.14442.joost@antarean.org> <4BA7452D0200007800036243@vpn.id2.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BA7452D0200007800036243@vpn.id2.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Monday 22 March 2010 10:23:41 Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> "J. Roeleveld" 22.03.10 10:15 >>> > > > >On Monday 22 March 2010 09:47:40 Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Based on the location of the file patched, it this would seem to be > >> targeted at the 2.6.18 tree, but then 2.6.18 does not have a > >> revalidate_disk() function (introduced only in .28). What's the deal > >> here? Should this perhaps be carried out by open coding in blkfront > >> what .28 does? > >> > >> Thanks, Jan > > > >Hi Jan, > > > >These patches are based on the Suse Xen-kernel, which are based on the > > 2.6.30 kernel (or in that range) > >This patch applies cleanly to the xen-kernel for Gentoo which is based on > >2.6.29. > > I understand that. But if the original patch has an issue, fixed by the > subsequently submitted one, then 2.6.18 (and other pre-.28 forward > ported kernels that would make use of the original patch) supposedly > also suffers from it, and hence also would need a respective fix. True, as this patch uses a function that wasn't introduced before 2.6.28, then the patch would need to be applied to 2.6.28+ or one that has that function back-ported. > It is btw. not clear to me whether this second patch is supposed to > address the problem you reported on March 16th, or whether that > issue is still awaiting debugging/resolution. This patch was issued to also address the issue I reported. I have not yet managed to test the patch myself due to time-constraints. Unless something else crops up, I should be able to test it tonight/tomorrow. But I specify "this week" as I never know if anything else comes around till I actually get home. -- Joost