Quoting Luca Berra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:27:49PM +0200, Svetoslav Slavtchev wrote: > >Hi, > > > >the attached diff fixes for me > >running lvm1 format VG's/LV's with the lvm2 tools and devmapper > >both for 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. > probably the fix is ok, but i would rather add a lvmrc script, like > hp-ux does, rc.sysinit is too much bloated for this. > besides even with lvm1 doing vgscan every time is redundant.
smth like debian & suse? there was a thread horrible rc.sysinit a while ago, but it won't change for 9.2 (and someone mentioned it would break the compatibility to redhat, i don't know we need it thought) > >is there any chance for LVM2 and devmapper in MDK-9.2, > >or is it too late? > i'd like to see them also. > > >i have experimental patches for 2.4 (see the ZY patches) > >http://varna.demon.co.uk/~svetlio/ruby-contrib/mdk-cook/probably_broken/ > 10x > > >but the devmapper and lvm2 rpms are tottaly brocken > >(from time to time i just use the web space until i solve my fs corruption > problems) > i have a decent devmapper rpm at > http://percy.comedia.it/~bluca/cooker/lvm2 > including a lilo with device mapper support. > > The lvm rpm there suck a little. > I had to create an lvm1 and lvm2 rpm which conflict with the lvm > in the distro and use alternatives to allow installation in parallel. > but i would like much better if i could devise a scheme to do runtime > lvm version detection. Maybe updating the alternatives in rc.sysinit > could be ok. why do you think we have to install lvm1 & lvm2 in parallel? to support kernels without devmapper? in case the distribution kernel has devmapper we don't need lvm1(just my thoughts) > But i think i can also write a wrapper that tries to in order the device > mapper proc file and the lvm1 proc file and then decides which one to > run. me - luser: where is the mapper proc file? i just got it running yesterday, did't have time to look arround, but couldn't find /proc/lvm :-) > The worst thing is that a luser could have some vg managed by dm and > some by lvm1 at the same time, but i don't know if we want to support > that. How? hell no, even if its teoretically possible, its probably pretty dangerous > We also need a working initrd which supports lvm2 and lvm1 also. do we need it :-) mandrake do not support "/" on lvm is there lvm1 support currently ? > >also could some one give me some hints about the last patch > >ZY18_dev-mapper_preffix_dm_fls.patch > > > >devmapper defines internally generic_fls which conflicts with one > >of the x86_64 patches (HB08_define_fls) , so i decided to prefix the > >devmapper ones with generic_dm_fls. > >is this the right solution? > >anyone having a better one? > > I believe the two peices of code are the same so the code in devmapper > can be dropped safely. well, devmapper code uses unsigned for the > parameter that i believe would be more correct than what we have. > Atm i just removed the fls function from dm-io.c > and renamed the only occurrence where it was called to use > generic_fls32() which is the devmapper one. may be we should then drop the HB08... and fix x86_64 to use the devmapper one, but i don't have x86_64 to fix/verify it best, svetljo
