lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13

linux-lvm Ulrich Wiederhold 4 participants 7 messages Oct 25, 2001 – Nov 3, 2001

Share & tools

Ulrich Wiederhold

author

2001-10-25 17:52 UTC #0 lore raw

Hello,
I untared 2.4.13, applied the official xfs patch, then the fresh created lvm patch.

No mistakes.
Then I configured the kernel and did a "make dep clean bzImage" which fails with this error msg (the last lines):
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_init':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x86): undefined reference to lvm_init_fs' drivers/md/mddev.o: In function lvm_cleanup':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x1bc): undefined reference to lvm_fin_fs' drivers/md/mddev.o: In function lvm_do_vg_create':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x19f6): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_create_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_vg_rename':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x1f4c): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_remove_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x20fb): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_create_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_vg_remove':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2159): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_remove_vg'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_pv_create':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2365): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_create_pv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_pv_remove':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x23a4): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_remove_pv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_lv_create':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2d44): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_create_lv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_lv_remove':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x2e43): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_remove_lv'
drivers/md/mddev.o: In function `lvm_do_lv_rename':
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x3d5a): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_remove_lv'
drivers/md/mddev.o(.text+0x3d7d): undefined reference to `lvm_fs_create_lv'
make[1]: *** [kallsyms] Fehler 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux'
make: *** [vmlinux] Fehler 2

Any ideas?

Thanks
Uli

Signature · 1 line

'The box said, 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so i installed Linux - TKK 5

Patrick Caulfield

2001-10-26 03:59 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 5 lines · Ulrich Wiederhold

Hello,
I untared 2.4.13, applied the official xfs patch, then the fresh created lvm patch.
No mistakes.

The XFS patch removes some essential LVM bits from the Makefile I think (maybe it has an old LVM in there or something)

Edit drivers/md/Makefile and change the lvm-mod-objs line to read:

lvm-mod-objs := lvm.o lvm-snap.o lvm-fs.o

patrick

Ulrich Wiederhold

author

2001-10-26 14:27 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 5 lines · Patrick Caulfield

Quoted 4 lines · Ulrich Wiederhold
Hello,
I untared 2.4.13, applied the official xfs patch, then the fresh created lvm patch.

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 1 line
No mistakes.
The XFS patch removes some essential LVM bits from the Makefile I think (maybe it has an old LVM in there or something)
Edit drivers/md/Makefile and change the lvm-mod-objs line to read:
lvm-mod-objs := lvm.o lvm-snap.o lvm-fs.o

Hello,
thanks again.
I did:
* untar the kernel 2.4.13
* patched with xfs
* created lvm-patch
* patched with lvm
* changed the line as described above
* configured the kernel
* built the kernel

This won´t work in another order, e.g. built the lvmpatch with a vanilla-kernel or apply the lvm patch first! I always got errors doing this.

Two questions:
1. Why isn´t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than the older one, isn´t it?
2. Should I write a bug-report to the xfs-guys? If yes, can I include your Email, Patrick?

Regards
Uli

Signature · 1 line

'The box said, 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so i installed Linux - TKK 5

Patrick Caulfield

2001-10-29 02:59 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 7 lines · Ulrich Wiederhold

Quoted 1 line · Patrick Caulfield
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
Two questions:
1. Why isn´t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than the older one, isn´t it?

It just isn't :-( we've submitted (most of) it to Alan Cox and his kernel is *much* more up-to-date than Linus'. I don't know just why the patches haven't been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the VM but won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre.

Quoted 2 lines

2. Should I write a bug-report to the xfs-guys? If yes, can I include your Email, Patrick?

I wouldn't like to claim it's an XFS bug as I haven't had a close look at their patches. I do know that they include some LVM patches in their distribution so it's certainly worth asking them nicely to upgrade them I suppose.

Feel free to quote my email..I don't think I wrote anything actionable :-)

patrick

Ulrich Wiederhold

author

2001-10-29 04:05 UTC #4 lore raw

Hello,

Quoted 4 lines · Patrick Caulfield

It just isn't :-( we've submitted (most of) it to Alan Cox and his kernel is *much* more up-to-date than Linus'. I don't know just why the patches haven't been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the VM but won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre.

I would like to run an ac-Kernel, but I could get it patched with xfs (xfs doesn´t support ac-kernels).

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 2 lines
2. Should I write a bug-report to the xfs-guys? If yes, can I include your Email, Patrick?
I wouldn't like to claim it's an XFS bug as I haven't had a close look at their patches. I do know that they include some LVM patches in their distribution so it's certainly worth asking them nicely to upgrade them I suppose.
Feel free to quote my email..I don't think I wrote anything actionable :-)

Ok.
:)
I will do this.

Uli

Signature · 1 line

'The box said, 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so i installed Linux - TKK 5

GCS

2001-10-29 04:52 UTC #5 lore raw

Quoted 1 line · Ulrich Wiederhold

I will do this.

I can answer it too: the CVS version is upgraded to 2.4.14pre3, and LVM
reverted to Linus' one. They said the patch from Sistina can be applied to it.
GCS

Paul Dickson

2001-11-03 04:21 UTC #6 lore raw

In reply to Patrick Caulfield

Quoted 9 lines · Patrick Caulfield

Quoted 7 lines · Ulrich Wiederhold
Quoted 1 line · Patrick Caulfield
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
Two questions:
1. Why isnï¿½t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than the older one, isnï¿½t it?

Quoted 4 lines

It just isn't :-( we've submitted (most of) it to Alan Cox and his kernel is *much* more up-to-date than Linus'. I don't know just why the patches haven't been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the VM but won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre.

Did Linus say why?

I ask this because Linus' submission policy is that you send patches to him repeatedly (ever two or three weeks) until he acknowledges them. Linus frequently gets behind in his E-mail, so he just deletes everything he hasn't seen.

I have included below a message from Linus which I saved about sending patches to him.

-Paul

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote to LKML:

Quoted 53 lines

Most importantly, when sending patches to me:
- specify clearly that you really want to see them in the standard kernel, and why. I occasionally get patches that just say "this is a good idea". I don't apply them. Especially if they are cc'd to somebody else too, in which case I pretty much assume that it's a RFC, not a "real patch".
- do NOT send patches in attachements. Send one patch per mail, in clear-text under your message, so that I can easily see the patch and decide then-and-there whether it looks ok. And if it doesn't look ok, and I do a "reply", the patch gets included in the reply so that I can point out which part of the patch I dislike.
Don't worry about sending me five emails. That's FINE. I much prefer seeing five consecutive emails from the same person with five distinct subject lines and five distinct patches, than seeing one email with five attachements to it.
- if your email system is broken, and you want to send patches as attachements to avoid whitspace damage, then please FIX YOUR EMAIL SYSTEM INSTEAD.
- Don't point to web-sites. If I have to move the mouse outside my email xterm to work on the email, your email just got ignored.
- Make your patches one sub-directory under the source tree you're working on. In short, your patches should look like something like
	--- clean/fs/inode.c ...
	+++ linux/fs/inode.c ..
	@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@
	...
so that I can (regardless of where my source tree is) apply them with "patch -p1" from my linux top directory. Then I can just do a
	cd v2.4/linux
	patch -p1 < ~/multiple-emails-with-multiple-accepted-patches
and not have to worry about three patches being based on /usr/src/linux, while two others not having a path at all and being individual filenames in linux/drivers/net.
- and finally: re-send. If I had laser-eye surgery the fay you sent the patches, I won't have applied them. If I took a day off and spent it with the kids at the pool instead, I won't have applied them. If I decided that this weekend I'm not going to read email for a change, I won't have applied them.
And when I come back to work a day or two later, I will have several hundred other emails to work through. I never go backwards in my emails.