On Mon October 13 2008, kristian wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Michael S. Zick <mszick@morethan.org>wrote: > > > On Mon October 13 2008, kristian wrote: > > > hello, > > > > > > I did apply (after ONE minor fix) vserver 2.3.0.35.6pre to the kernel > > > 2.6.27-rc9 without failures. > > > > > > > Did the same to 2.6.27-stable this weekend - > > Ignoring the expected Makefile reject, I had one hunk > > fail to apply to fs/dcache.c > > > > I "corrected" (quoted since I don't have a clue what > > I am doing here) with: > > > > --- fs/dcache.c.orig 2008-10-09 17:13:53.000000000 -0500 > > +++ fs/dcache.c 2008-10-12 10:49:04.000000000 -0500 > > @@ -962,6 +970,7 @@ > > if (parent) > > list_add(&dentry->d_u.d_child, &parent->d_subdirs); > > dentry_stat.nr_dentry++; > > + vx_dentry_inc(dentry); > > spin_unlock(&dcache_lock); > > > > Is that same/similar to your "one minor fix"? > > > > this was already in the original patch, but I did change the next part > (also not really knowing what I do, but it all looks sane) for fs/dcache.c > > @@ -1412,4 +1421,5 @@ struct dentry * __d_lookup(struct dentry > > atomic_inc(&dentry->d_count); > + vx_dentry_inc(dentry); > found = dentry; > spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock); > I probably just snipped the wrong fragment out of the difference I made and posted it. I should have looked 500 lines deeper. ;) I am certain we are talking about the same change (the one you posted). Somebody made a gratuitous inversion of the logic to have a single exit point for several tests. Someone should mention to them that gcc is an optimizing compiler - I am guessing it generates the same code regardless of how you write it. ;) (I didn't actually check.) Mike > with regards > Kristian > > > > > than I realized that xfs is not > > > compiling. after removing the xfs support from the kernel > > > configuration everything went smooth and works OK so far. > > > > > > > Same here - had to disable XFS and just get on with my life. > > > > > since I work on a project where we want to use vserver on a kernel > > > 2.6.27 in the near future (rather sooner than later), I have two > > > questions: > > > > > > * are there already people using the 2.3.0.35 patch on a production > > system ? > > > > > > > Not used in a production system here but I am making massive use of > > COW to replicate and track changes made in a large (3Gbyte) build system. > > > > What can I say? It hasn't crashed and burned (yet). > > > > Mike > > > * are we the only ones using xfs ? if not, is there a patchset which > > > compiles - I am happy to test > > > it. > > > > > > maybe I can help somehow (fixing xfs patch is unfortunatley beyond my > > > capabilities) ? > > > > > > thanx for any comments, > > > > > > with regards > > > Kristian > > > > > > > > > > > > > >