On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:54:30PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
> > > Where? Calling buffer_IO_error would be ok, but there are no such calls
> > > in 2.4.3. I just stated elsewhere that submit_bh should probably be
> > > clearing the dirty bit, not
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
> > Where? Calling buffer_IO_error would be ok, but there are no such calls
> > in 2.4.3. I just stated elsewhere that submit_bh should probably be
> > clearing the dirty bit, not ll_rw_block, in which case the b_end_io
> > is fine. But
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:37:31PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
> > > Irks, another one. lvm_make_request_fn also needs to call b_end_io
> > > if a map fails.
> >
> > This is wrong.
> >
> > In case of an io error we do already call
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
> > Irks, another one. lvm_make_request_fn also needs to call b_end_io
> > if a map fails.
>
> This is wrong.
>
> In case of an io error we do already call buffer_IO_error() on 2.4 in
> lvm_map().
Where? Calling buffer_IO_error would be ok, but
Jens,
thanks for the b_dev hint you provided.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > To the LVM folks: you can't use b_dev or b_blocknr inside your
> > make_request_fn, it destroys stacking drivers such as loop. And
> > is just
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> To the LVM folks: you can't use b_dev or b_blocknr inside your
> make_request_fn, it destroys stacking drivers such as loop. And
> is just plain wrong in the general case too.
Irks, another one. lvm_make_request_fn also needs to call b_end_io
if a map
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04 2001, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> >
> > fyi, loop devices over lvm LV's dont work for me...
> >
> > I've tested with 2.4.3final (and some other 2.4.3 derivates) and two
> > lvm'ized partitions with a size of about 1gig each; mke2fs
> >
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04 2001, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
fyi, loop devices over lvm LV's dont work for me...
I've tested with 2.4.3final (and some other 2.4.3 derivates) and two
lvm'ized partitions with a size of about 1gig each; mke2fs
just goes
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
To the LVM folks: you can't use b_dev or b_blocknr inside your
make_request_fn, it destroys stacking drivers such as loop. And
is just plain wrong in the general case too.
Irks, another one. lvm_make_request_fn also needs to call b_end_io
if a map fails.
Jens,
thanks for the b_dev hint you provided.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
To the LVM folks: you can't use b_dev or b_blocknr inside your
make_request_fn, it destroys stacking drivers such as loop. And
is just plain
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
Irks, another one. lvm_make_request_fn also needs to call b_end_io
if a map fails.
This is wrong.
In case of an io error we do already call buffer_IO_error() on 2.4 in
lvm_map().
Where? Calling buffer_IO_error would be ok, but there are
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:37:31PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
Irks, another one. lvm_make_request_fn also needs to call b_end_io
if a map fails.
This is wrong.
In case of an io error we do already call buffer_IO_error() on 2.4 in
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
Where? Calling buffer_IO_error would be ok, but there are no such calls
in 2.4.3. I just stated elsewhere that submit_bh should probably be
clearing the dirty bit, not ll_rw_block, in which case the b_end_io
is fine. But buffer_IO_error is
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:54:30PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05 2001, Heinz J. Mauelshagen wrote:
Where? Calling buffer_IO_error would be ok, but there are no such calls
in 2.4.3. I just stated elsewhere that submit_bh should probably be
clearing the dirty bit, not
On Wed, Apr 04 2001, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
>
> fyi, loop devices over lvm LV's dont work for me...
>
> I've tested with 2.4.3final (and some other 2.4.3 derivates) and two
> lvm'ized partitions with a size of about 1gig each; mke2fs
> just goes into D-state and stays there when applying
fyi, loop devices over lvm LV's dont work for me...
I've tested with 2.4.3final (and some other 2.4.3 derivates) and two
lvm'ized partitions with a size of about 1gig each; mke2fs
just goes into D-state and stays there when applying it to /dev/loop0,
running it directly on the LV-device
fyi, loop devices over lvm LV's dont work for me...
I've tested with 2.4.3final (and some other 2.4.3 derivates) and two
lvm'ized partitions with a size of about 1gig each; mke2fs
just goes into D-state and stays there when applying it to /dev/loop0,
running it directly on the LV-device
On Wed, Apr 04 2001, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
fyi, loop devices over lvm LV's dont work for me...
I've tested with 2.4.3final (and some other 2.4.3 derivates) and two
lvm'ized partitions with a size of about 1gig each; mke2fs
just goes into D-state and stays there when applying it to
18 matches
Mail list logo
