On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:51:18AM +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 05:06:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 06:43:23PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > > Would it be possible to clean up the ioctl interface so we > > > > dont need such large hacks for LVM support? I can do the work > > > > but I want to be sure you guys will agree to it. > > If you're prepared to do the work we'd be glad to accept the patch - > please send it to me or the list so I can check over it before > committing it. As we don't have an UltraSPARC available for testing > it's probably better done by someone who does ! I have an Ultra-1 available, presently in use as a prototyping system. It's not currently using LVM and there's no unpartitioned space on the drive, but if one of the core developers (or otherwise someone I have reason to trust) wants to try testing LVM over loopback (or something of that sort), I can provide access. I don't have the time to do testing myself, unless someone can provide a specific set of instructions (ie. the nature of an expected bug is known; the only question is its presence). Btw, I can only promise availability for about a week or so; the machine may become a production system after that time.
Description: PGP signature