Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:28:17 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [patch 11/27] dm exception store: refactor zero_area |
| |
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:40:04PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:34:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > 2.6.27-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us > > > know. > > > > > > ------------------ > > > From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com> > > > > > > commit 7c9e6c17325fab380fbe9c9787680ff7d4a51abd upstream > > > > > > Use a separate buffer for writing zeroes to the on-disk snapshot > > > exception store, make the updating of ps->current_area explicit and > > > refactor the code in preparation for the fix in the next patch. > > > > > > No functional change. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> > > > > > > --- > > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > Oops, this patch causes a build error: > > > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c:235: error: implicit declaration of function 'area_location' > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c:241: error: 'area' undeclared (first use in this function) > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c:241: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c:241: error: for each function it appears in.) > > > > I'll drop this one, and the follow-on dm-exception-store.c patch as > > well, as that was the only reason this patch was added. > > > > If you want to redo these two patches, and get them into the > > 2.6.27-stable tree, please do so and send them to stable@kernel.org. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > You should apply this one patch before: > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/agk/patches/2.6/editing/dm-exception-store-introduce-area_location-function.patch
Hm, so we need 2 "cleanup" patches to get one tiny fix in a third patch? Is it worth it? If so, care to resend these three to stable@kernel.org or possibly, just backport what you really need in the third one, with the needed first 2 patches merged into it in one patch to get it all in a simpler way?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |