Re: [patch 11/27] dm exception store: refactor zero_area

[Greg KH]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  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@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/