Intresting notes on LVM in 2.4.0-test9

Hi,
After playing around for a bit I have gotten lvm to work under
2.4.0-test9, using a Debian install that is mostly potato, but with a few deb's (like libc6) from woody thrown in.

The hard part was getting the userspace tools to work. Heinz,
*pretty please with sugar on top* put out a new version. Crawling through all those patches to figure out what would be the best combination wasn't really all that fun. To me it would be a lot easier just to come out with a 0.8final2 and prevent this.

I have a deb at http://maski.org/lvm/ if anyone else on debian needs a
newer set that the 0.8i version that is official.

One weird thing: /proc/lvm reports:

Global: 61650 bytes malloced IOP version: 6 2:24:42 active

but in in the 0.8final source lvm.h has this:

#define LVM_DRIVER_IOP_VERSION 7

Is that right?

myers

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.

Yes, that would be nice, but it doesn't look like it will happen. Did you look at the patches in my SRPM (ftp://ftp.stelias.com/pub/adilger/)? AFAIK, it is up-to-date with all of the patches against 2.2 LVM-0.8final.

This confused me for a long time as well. As it was explained to me eventually by Jan Niehusmann that the library uses LVM_LIB_IOP_VERSION from liblvm.h to match to LVM_DRIVER_IOP_VERSION in the kernel.

In my user-tools RPM, I simply get rid of tools/lib/lvm.h and use the kernel header, so that everything is sure to match... Note that there appear to be structure changes between 0.8final lvm.h and the 2.4 kernel lvm.h, so it is important you only use one header.

Cheers, Andreas

Andreas Dilger  \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
                 \  would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/               -- Dogbert

I'll take a look at your changes. I am the official Debian maintainer, I have my current 0.8final packages at
http://www.lpsg.demon.co.uk/files/debian/

Probably still a couple of patches need applying to those though.

       -- <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> --

Cool.

No, after looking at what I did yesterday, I know I forgot something.
Besides the fact that I did put up a source package.

Rather than one big patch, what I think we really need is a directory
of patch with descriptions. Too bad we don't use sourceforge.

Why isn't this in the main debian archives anyway? It seems like you
would have to have this in order to play around with a 2.4.0-test kernel and lvm.

myers

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.