On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:24:04 +0100, Kay Sievers said: > On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 18:12 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:04:12 +0100, Kay Sievers said: > > > > > What's the value of SYSFS_DEPRECATED? Care to set it to yes, if it isn't, > > > and try again? > > > > I *knew* there was a D'Oh! error in here. ;) > > > > Bisection is fast closing in on gregkh-driver-block-device.patch, which broke > > my LVM almost the exact same way the *last* time it showed up in -mm ;) > > Oh, it must not, if SYSFS_DEPRECATED=y is set. I hope we fixed all > issues. Please let us know if it does not work, then we will need to > look into it. I changed SYSFS_DEPRECATED to y, and it was able to boot with the same old initrd I've been using for a while. Note that I had it set to 'n' for at least the last 4-5 -mm kernels, so it *was* working fine without it.. > > > A fix for LVM to handle symlinks instead of directories is in the LVM > > > CVS tree, but there wasn't a release since August. > > > > I seem to recall it was 'nash' rather than LVM that had the indigestion the > > last time around. > > I think that a recent nash should work, even with SYSFS_DEPRECATED=n. > Anyway, nothing should change when SYSFS_DEPRECATED set, nash works fine > here, with that. It was working fine with =n here until -rc4-mm1 as well, that's why it's a bit of a surprise. What got added to the 'deprecated' list in this iteration? Now for the truly odd part - I just tried with a rebuilt initrd that included the lvm.static from last night's Rawhide (lvm2-2.02.29-1.fc9). And that didn't work any better. So to summarize: (old lvm == 2.02.24) release SYSFS_DEPRECATED lvm2 works -rc3-mm2 N old yes -rc4-mm1 N old no -rc4-mm1 Y old yes -rc4-mm1 N new no (I'm sure looking at that, everybody is now going 'WTF??!?' ;) gregkh-driver-driver-core-fix-class-glue-dir-cleanup-logic.patch and gregkh-driver-block-device.patch are the only patches left in the (very small) bisect window that reference SYSFS_DEPRECATED at all (according to grep) Anybody got any brilliant ideas? :)
Attachment:
pgpiO3xfC6J4R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
