> I''m surprised that you were able to make the 2.6 patch apply to
1.0.2,
> because in retrospect we noticed that it was created against a different
> tree. Are you sure that it applied cleanly?
In fact, I applied the 2.6 patch to your CVS tree.
There were two conflicts with the following files: "configure.in" and
"include/linux/lustre_compat25.h".
Concerning my kernel crash, I guess the problem is that detach_mnt/attach_mnt
(fs/namespace.c) do not take into account the "intent" field of the
nameidata
structure.
In addition, I had also several problems related to:
- Makefile (llite/Makefile includes llite/rw24.c instead of llite/rw26.c);
- llite/rw26.c which calls misnamed fields of the ll_async_page structure;
- modules format (no vermagic);
- ...
I fixed most of them, but it''s clear this patch was not created against
the
tree I am using.
> In any case, we have not yet started to debug our 2.6 patches on ia64.
> Can you file a good bug in https://bugzilla.lustre.org, please?
OK, I will do it. However, can you tell me which tree to use in order to check
if these problems are still there before starting a bug report?
Thanks.
Johann