This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel][PATCH]: Support dynamic resizing of vbds

To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel][PATCH]: Support dynamic resizing of vbds
From: "J. Roeleveld" <joost@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:42:48 +0100
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:43:36 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4BA7452D0200007800036243@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4BA23895020000300008184F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201003221015.14442.joost@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BA7452D0200007800036243@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; )
On Monday 22 March 2010 10:23:41 Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> "J. Roeleveld" <joost@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 22.03.10 10:15 >>>
> >
> >On Monday 22 March 2010 09:47:40 Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Based on the location of the file patched, it this would seem to be
> >> targeted at the 2.6.18 tree, but then 2.6.18 does not have a
> >> revalidate_disk() function (introduced only in .28). What's the deal
> >> here? Should this perhaps be carried out by open coding in blkfront
> >> what .28 does?
> >>
> >> Thanks, Jan
> >
> >Hi Jan,
> >
> >These patches are based on the Suse Xen-kernel, which are based on the
> > 2.6.30 kernel (or in that range)
> >This patch applies cleanly to the xen-kernel for Gentoo which is based on
> >2.6.29.
> I understand that. But if the original patch has an issue, fixed by the
> subsequently submitted one, then 2.6.18 (and other pre-.28 forward
> ported kernels that would make use of the original patch) supposedly
> also suffers from it, and hence also would need a respective fix.

True, as this patch uses a function that wasn't introduced before 2.6.28, then 
the patch would need to be applied to 2.6.28+ or one that has that function 

> It is btw. not clear to me whether this second patch is supposed to
> address the problem you reported on March 16th, or whether that
> issue is still awaiting debugging/resolution.

This patch was issued to also address the issue I reported.
I have not yet managed to test the patch myself due to time-constraints. 
Unless something else crops up, I should be able to test it tonight/tomorrow.

But I specify "this week" as I never know if anything else comes around till I 
actually get home.


Xen-devel mailing list