Erez Zadok wrote:

Joe, are you sure your're applying the patch against a 2.6.23 kernel source
and not a differet one (say, 2.6.22 or 2.6.24)?

Hi Erez:

Yes, I pulled it from http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.23.11.tar.bz2 this morning.

  It looks Trond's NFS patches for 2.6.23 are stamping on it.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/linux-2.6.23.11# grep fs_private include/linux/writeback.h
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/linux-2.6.23.11# cd ..
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1# mkdir t
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1# cd t
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/t# tar -xjf ../linux-2.6.23.11.tar.bz2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/t# cd linux-2.6.23.11/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/t/linux-2.6.23.11# grep fs_private include/linux/writeback.h
        void *fs_private;               /* For use by ->writepages() */
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/t/linux-2.6.23.11# patch -p1 < ../../linux-2.6.23-NFS_ALL.dif
patching file Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
patching file fs/Kconfig
patching file fs/lockd/mon.c
patching file fs/lockd/xdr.c
patching file fs/lockd/xdr4.c
...
patching file net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/verbs.c
patching file net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
patching file net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/t/linux-2.6.23.11# grep fs_private include/linux/writeback.h
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/local1/t/linux-2.6.23.11#

Looking at his patches, it looks like they take fs_private out of the struct

diff --git a/include/linux/writeback.h b/include/linux/writeback.h
index b4af6bc..a111d3d 100644
--- a/include/linux/writeback.h
+++ b/include/linux/writeback.h
@@ -61,8 +61,6 @@ struct writeback_control {
unsigned for_reclaim:1; /* Invoked from the page allocator */
        unsigned for_writepages:1;      /* This is a writepages() call */
        unsigned range_cyclic:1;        /* range_start is cyclic */
-
-       void *fs_private;               /* For use by ->writepages() */
 };


my 2.6.23.11 kernel has a field named fs_private in struct
writeback_control, defined in include/linux/writeback.h

I am looking at 2.6.24-rc5 to see what happens there. Sure enough, fs_private is gone.

Any words of wisdom on this? Should I try the later patch for the 2.6.24-rc* kernel?

Thanks.

Joe


--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics LLC,
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web  : http://www.scalableinformatics.com
       http://jackrabbit.scalableinformatics.com
phone: +1 734 786 8423
fax  : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615
_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/
unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs

Reply via email to