Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:21:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:21:11 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:58055 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:21:11 -0400 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM2 modifies the buffer_head struct? To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Mark Peloquin" Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:23:45 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML072/01/M/IBM(Release 5.0.10 |March 28, 2002) at 07/05/2002 11:23:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 819 Lines: 20 On 2002-07-02 14:17:02, Joe wrote: >This is a horrible hack to get around the fact that ext3 uses the >b_private field for its own purposes after the buffer_head has been >handed to the block layer (it doesn't just use b_private when in the >b_end_io function). Is this acceptable behaviour ? Other > filesystems >do not have similar problems as far as I know. Under what conditions does ext3 exhibit this behaviour? In EVMS, we have been stacking the b_private field (for many months), and have not seen any problems or have had any problems reported with ext3. Mark - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/