From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750830AbWDTKLY (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:11:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750834AbWDTKLY (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:11:24 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:33439 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750831AbWDTKLS (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:11:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:10:13 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Pekka J Enberg Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, agk@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] Device-mapper snapshot metadata userspace breakage Message-Id: <20060420031013.68cff2cf.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20060420025953.577e2225.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pekka J Enberg wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > Pekka J Enberg wrote: > > > The commit aa14edeb994f8f7e223d02ad14780bf2fa719f6d "[PATCH] device-mapper > > > snapshot: load metadata on creation" breaks userspace and is blocking us > > > from moving to the 2.6.16 series kernel. Debian doesn't have the > > > new required LVM version in stable yet. Is the change intentional? > > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The changelog said > > > > If you're using lvm2, for this patch to work properly you should update > > to lvm2 version 2.02.01 or later and device-mapper version 1.02.02 or > > later. > > > > Which was pretty bad of us. I hope LVM 2.02.01 userspace is > > back-compatible with older kernels? > > Yeah, I know, but that still leaves us in an unfortunate situation as the > 2.6.16 series has security fixes that are not AFAIK in 2.6.15. Anyway, if > the change is intentional and approved, I guess we'll just have to live > with it. Thanks! > Well I wouldn't say it was "approved". It was disapproved of and grudgingly accepted :( More info here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/23/130