From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Support dynamic resizing of vbds Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:23:41 +0000 Message-ID: <4BA7452D0200007800036243@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <4BA23895020000300008184F@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <4BA244F50200003000081870@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <4BA73CBC0200007800036216@vpn.id2.novell.com> <201003221015.14442.joost@antarean.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201003221015.14442.joost@antarean.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "J. Roeleveld" Cc: Ky Srinivasan , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> "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? >>=20 >> Thanks, Jan > >Hi Jan, > >These patches are based on the Suse Xen-kernel, which are based on the = 2.6.30=20 >kernel (or in that range) >This patch applies cleanly to the xen-kernel for Gentoo which is based = on=20 >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. 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. Jan