[linux-lvm] Problem using lvreduce
Joe Thornber
thornber at btconnect.com
Fri Aug 17 10:43:44 UTC 2001
Soohoon,
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:06:39PM -0400, Soohoon Lee wrote:
>
> That's the problem what I had.
> I posted fix and waiting verification but
> mail traffic saying they are busy with 1.0 release and PE start point
> problem.
If you think we're not attending something important, please repost
and kick up a fuss. I do forget/miss things on the list.
> And seems, this problem is also related to that PE start point problem.
> Anyway, quick and no warranty fix is
>
>
> --- pv_release_pe.c.old Thu Aug 16 09:23:35 2001
> +++ pv_release_pe.c Wed Aug 15 09:09:06 2001
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
> }
> pe_index = ( vg->lv[l]->lv_current_pe[p].pe -
> LVM_VGDA_SIZE ( vg->pv[pv_num]) / SECTOR_SIZE) /
> - vg->pe_size;
> + vg->pe_size - 1;
> debug ( "pv_release_pe -- pv_name: %s pe: %lu sector: %lu\n",
> vg->pv[pv_num]->pv_name,
> pe_index,
This patch looks wrong, I cant see why anyone would want to divide by
pe_size - 1, if it's working it's by accident.
I'm not familiar with this bit of code, but what I think it's doing
is converting the le number 'p' into a pe number. I suspect that for your
system the le numbers map directly onto the pe numbers, hence your comment
wondering why we don't just use 'p'. The pe location changed recently so
I could well believe this calculation is wrong.
Heinz,
Please confirm this is what this bit of code does.
If so we should introduce a companion for get_pe_offset that does the
opposite in liblvm.h:
static inline ulong get_pe_from_offset(ulong offset, pv_t *pv)
{
return (offset - pv->pe_start) / pv->pe_size;
}
- Joe
More information about the linux-lvm
mailing list