C R Ritson C.R.Ritson-at-newcastle.ac.uk |LVM Mailinglist linux-lvm/Allow| wrote 45 lines: > > My bet is that you first patched the kernel for VFS-lock and > > *then* patched the kernel for LVM. This undoes (parts of) > > the VFS-lock. The reason is as follows: > That is strange - my exprience with kernel 2.4.20 and LVM 1.0.7 was as > follows: > Attempting to apply the VFS-lock patch AFTER the LVM generated patch > gives me an un-compilable tree with with unresolved reverences to > fsync_dev_lockfs and unlockfs. I have compiled quite a few kernels exactly after my cheatsheet (from at least 2.4.21-rc1 up to my currently running 2.4.21-lvm) and it works. At times I may have to hand-patch because of trivial changes to get the VFS-lock patch in, but ... that's it. > On one test machine I am running a 2.4.20 kernel in which the VFS-lock > patch was applied BEFORE the LVM patch. Here, I am taking a snapshot at > Would Heinz care to comment on these two apparently conflicting results? It MIGHT be that LVM 1.0.7 is in sync (or at least not damaging) to the VFS-lock patch for 2.4.20. I *have* had problems in the past (I tried VFS-lock and the LVM and it failed), but I cannot vouch that they are there for kernel 2.4.20/LVM 1.0.7. -Wolfgang _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@sistina.com http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
