[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: 0.0.6b conflict with raid patch



Brian Murrell writes:
> I am trying to integerate 0.0.6b with our kernel RPM here and have come
> across an interesting conflict.  I want to include the raid patch that
> Red Hat includes in their kernel but that patch includes the following
> hunk:
> 
>  #define BH_Wait_IO	7	/* 1 if we should throttle on this buffer */
> +#define BH_LowPrio	8	/* 1 if the buffer is lowprio */
>  
> ext3 0.0.6b has the following hunk in it:
> 
>  #define BH_Wait_IO	7	/* 1 if we should throttle on this buffer */
> +#define BH_Temp		8	/* 1 if the buffer is temporary (unlinked) */
> .
> .
> .
> +#define BH_JDirty	15	/* 1 if buffer is dirty but journaled */
> +
> 
> These two hunks obviously conflict.  A quick inspection reveals that the
> BH* constants are used in the b_state member of the struct buffer_head
> which is defined to be an unsigned long.  It seems to be that simply
> leaving BH_LowPrio wth 8 and starting the ext3 BH constants at 9 (with
> BH_Temp) should be safe.

Yes, I've already done this for the Turbolinux kernel, and have been running
it for a long time.  It has the other pleasing side-effect that BH_Jdirty
is now 16, which matches the BH_JDirty that reiserfs uses.

Cheers, Andreas
-- 
Andreas Dilger  \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
                 \  would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/               -- Dogbert





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]