[CentOS] CentOS 4.3 x86_64 xfs module rpm

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 14:28 +0100, James Pearson wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 13:40 +0100, James Pearson wrote:
> > 
> >>Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 03:56 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 22:42 +0100, James Pearson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 25/05/06, Fong Vang <sudoyang at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The xfs kernel modules at dev.centos.org are very handy.  There are a
> >>>>>>couple of xfs modules in the 4.3 x86_64 directory, but I don't think
> >>>>>>it's for the x86_64 4.3 kernel (2.6.9-34).  The latest ones in that
> >>>>>>directory is for the -22 kernel (I believe this came with CentOS 4.2).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Get one of the kernel-module-xfs SRPMS (doesn't matter which one, they
> >>>>>are the same), install it and then edit the kernel-module-xfs.spec
> >>>>>file and comment out the line:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>%patch6 -p1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>(or, use the patch to the spec file attached)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>and then build the RPM using something like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>rpmbuild --target x86_64 --define "kernel_topdir /lib/modules/2.6.9-34/build" \
> >>>>>kernel-module-xfs.spec
> >>>>>
> >>>>>see: ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/testing/RHEL4/README
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I was given these instructions by Eric Sandeen @ SGI
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I've been using 2.6.9-34 with XFS compiled in this way ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>James Pearson
> >>>>
> >>>>Dang ... did I not publish those?
> >>>>
> >>>>I will check now, and if they are not published, then I will do so.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>OK ... should be some good xfs kernel modules for all the kernels now.
> >>
> >>The spec file still applies %patch6 for the 2.6.9-34 kernels - I was 
> >>under the impression that this patch was not needed with the RHEL4U3 
> >>(and above) kernels ... although this may now not be the case.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > It works this way, though if upstream has properly patched up fs/direct-
> > io.c it may no longer be required.
> > 
> > I have contacted SGI and asked for any other mods that they might have
> > too.
> > 
> > If they give me any, I'll rebuild the modules.
> > 
> > Thanks for the input ...
> 
> This is from an email from Eric Sandeen:
> 
> I put this blurb into the spec so it will build against both eras of EL4 
> kernels:
> 
> # Updated dio locking scheme appeared in RHEL4U3; so did 
> DIO_CLUSTER_LOCKING,
> # which we can use as a marker.
> # (actual changes we need were in direct-io.c, it's not in kernel-dev 
> package)
> # "older_dio_locking" is then 1 if we're building against an un-updated 
> kernel
> %define older_dio_locking %(grep -q DIO_CLUSTER_LOCKING 
> %{kernel_topdir}/include/linux/fs.h; echo $?)
> 
> and then wrapped the proper patch:
> 
> Patch6          : xfs_direct_io_locking.patch
> 
> ...
> 
> %if %{older_dio_locking}
> %patch6 -p1
> %endif
> 
> 
> I included this as a patch to the spec file eariler in this thread
> 
> James Pearson
> _______________________________________________

James,

For the record, this patch is indeed removable from builds newer than
2.6.9-34.EL

It has been tested and rolled in the latest kernel-module-xfs files in 

http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing

(the versions kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-34.EL-0.1-3 and kernel-module-
xfs-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL-0.1-3 ... also smp, hugemem, largesmp of the same
versions)

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060606/7a73b4dc/attachment.sig>