I just upgraded to kernel 2.4.14 and applied the ext3 patch ext3-2.4-0.9.15-2414.gz. It appears (to me) that the patch breaks the loop block device module (loop.o). The problem is that the call to deactivate_page is unresolved. The routine used to be defined in swap.c. It looks like it no longer exists in 2.4.14. I'm not a kernel programmer so if I'm mistaken, sorry. I do get an unresolved reference to deactivate_page when the loop module is loaded. Just wanted to report it. Richard Lynch WVNET
This is not the ext3 patch's fault. Simply remove all references to deactivate_page; it was ripped out of 2.4.14. --- Dan Chen crimsun@email.unc.edu GPG key: www.cs.unc.edu/~chenda/pubkey.gpg.asc On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Richard Lynch wrote:> I just upgraded to kernel 2.4.14 and applied the ext3 patch > ext3-2.4-0.9.15-2414.gz. It appears (to me) that the patch > breaks the loop block device module (loop.o). The problem is > that the call to deactivate_page is unresolved. The routine > used to be defined in swap.c. It looks like it no longer > exists in 2.4.14. > > I'm not a kernel programmer so if I'm mistaken, sorry. I do > get an unresolved reference to deactivate_page when the loop > module is loaded. > > Just wanted to report it. > > Richard Lynch > WVNET
On 20011106 at 21:50:11 Daniel T. Chen said:>This is not the ext3 patch's fault. Simply remove all references to >deactivate_page; it was ripped out of 2.4.14.I'm not sure I understand. If the patch makes references to another kernel routine that no longer exists isn't the patch broken? Shouldn't the ext3 patch be updated so that it no longer references the code that was removed in kernel-2.4.14? Richard Lynch WVNET
On 20011106 at 19:15:23 Mike Fedyk said:>Oh, boy...>If you try unpatched 2.4.14 you will have the same problem. This is *not* >an ext3 issue...>MikeWhoops... my apologies. I did not look at the code prior to applying the ext3 patch. To be honest, I don't know how to backout a patch once it's been applied. Sorry about the false alarm. Richard Lynch WVNET