Does anyone know if supermount has been ported to a more recent kernel by anyone? The last version of supermount I could find was for 2.4.0
> Does anyone know if supermount has been ported to a more recent
> kernel by anyone? The last version of supermount I could find
> was for 2.4.0
I mailed the same question to the maintainer over six months ago but didn't
get any answer. So I upgraded the patch myself to work with versions 2.4.2,
2.4.4 and 2.4.5. At some point I switched to using 2.4.4-ac9, which I am
still using without problems, but I didn't have time back then to port the
patch to that version.
I have no idea if anyone else has done anything similar. Personally I
initially found this patch as a part of the standard kernel provided by
mandrake 7.2 (most likely), but I don't know whether they have it in there
anymore. I'll check that out. Anyway, if nobody else is already doing it, I
could try my best to port it to the newer kernels available, and also to the
-ac series, and if I succeed, possibly continue porting it when new versions
arrive. I'd be happy to have supermount support back in there myself too.
As this is the first part of kernel software I have been porting anyway,
I'll happily listen to good advice and pointers to resources that could help
me figuring out what interface changes etc there has been in the 2.4 series.
I remember there being multiple changes already between 2.4.0 and 2.4.4 that
required changing some code, partially because the patch also includes some
small changes to some generic fs code (mostly locking issues).
- xkr47
"A month of sundays ago Jonas Berlin wrote:"
> > Does anyone know if supermount has been ported to a more recent
> > kernel by anyone? The last version of supermount I could find
> > was for 2.4.0
>
> I mailed the same question to the maintainer over six months ago but didn't
> get any answer. So I upgraded the patch myself to work with versions 2.4.2,
> 2.4.4 and 2.4.5. At some point I switched to using 2.4.4-ac9, which I am
> still using without problems, but I didn't have time back then to port the
> patch to that version.
>
I have a patch dated Jan 14 17:09:06 2001. Does that match any of
yours?
diff -rNu --exclude-from=exclude linux-2.4.vanilla/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c linux-2.4/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c
--- linux-2.4.vanilla/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c Sun Jan 14 17:09:06
2001
+++ linux-2.4/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c Sun Jan 14 17:28:04 2001
Let me have your patch anyway. I want to examine the supermount
patches. I'll send you the one I have if you want it.
Peter
>?I have no idea if anyone else has done anything similar. Personally I
>?initially found this patch as a part of the standard kernel provided by
>?mandrake 7.2 (most likely), but I don't know whether they have it in there
Mandrake has supermount in their 2.4.8 kernel from Mandrake 8.1.
greetings
Christian Borntr?ger
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Jonas Berlin wrote:
> > Does anyone know if supermount has been ported to a more recent
> > kernel by anyone? The last version of supermount I could find
> > was for 2.4.0
>
> I mailed the same question to the maintainer over six months ago but didn't
> get any answer. So I upgraded the patch myself to work with versions 2.4.2,
> 2.4.4 and 2.4.5. At some point I switched to using 2.4.4-ac9, which I am
> still using without problems, but I didn't have time back then to port the
> patch to that version.
>
> I have no idea if anyone else has done anything similar. Personally I
> initially found this patch as a part of the standard kernel provided by
> mandrake 7.2 (most likely), but I don't know whether they have it in there
> anymore. I'll check that out. Anyway, if nobody else is already doing it, I
> could try my best to port it to the newer kernels available, and also to the
> -ac series, and if I succeed, possibly continue porting it when new versions
> arrive. I'd be happy to have supermount support back in there myself too.
>
> As this is the first part of kernel software I have been porting anyway,
> I'll happily listen to good advice and pointers to resources that could help
> me figuring out what interface changes etc there has been in the 2.4 series.
> I remember there being multiple changes already between 2.4.0 and 2.4.4 that
> required changing some code, partially because the patch also includes some
> small changes to some generic fs code (mostly locking issues).
Last I heard, Juan J. Quintela <[email protected]> was porting supermount
to 2.4.x.
>From what I heard from him its not an easy job: the current 2.4.x
available patches are full of problems.
> I have no idea if anyone else has done anything similar. Personally I
> initially found this patch as a part of the standard kernel provided by
> mandrake 7.2 (most likely), but I don't know whether they have it in there
The Mandrake folks (Juan in paticular I believe) have been doing this work.
Alternatively you can do the same kind of stuff in userspace now thanks
to Al Viro's mount cleanups.
Take a look at volumagic on ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/alan/..
its strictly a proof of concept
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 10:18:06PM +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> I have a patch dated Jan 14 17:09:06 2001. Does that match any of
> yours?
Sorry for the slow reply..
Yes, that's the official release for 2.4.0 and also the last (by the
original author).
> Let me have your patch anyway. I want to examine the supermount
> patches. I'll send you the one I have if you want it.
You can find my patches in:
http://outerspace.dyndns.org/html/personal_pages/xkr47/kernel-patches/
I have only used the 2.4.5 patch for a longer period.. So the others might
not work that well =/.
- xkr47
>>>>> "shawn" == Shawn Walker <[email protected]> writes:
shawn> Does anyone know if supermount has been ported to a more recent kernel by anyone? The last version of supermount I could find was for 2.4.0
You can get patches from:
ftp://ftp.mandrakesoft.com/pub/quintela/
for 2.4.8-ac12, I have patches for more recent kernel, but they are
still not there. I expect to put there tomorrow of the following day.
Any comments, suggestions are welcome. I am in the middle of trying
ot get _some_ sane lock to supermount, as the beast basically don't
have any look at the moment, normally works due to de the fact that
normally there are not one hundred concurrent users of the floppy or
cd :(
Later, Juan.
--
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they
are different -- Larry McVoy