* [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
@ 2007-02-15 11:50 Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-15 15:23 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Chmielewski @ 2007-02-15 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum error":
# vgdisplay
/dev/sda2: Checksum error
--- Volume group ---
VG Name LVM2
System ID
Format lvm2
Metadata Areas 1
Metadata Sequence No 49
VG Access read/write
VG Status resizable
MAX LV 0
Cur LV 34
Open LV 34
Max PV 0
Cur PV 1
Act PV 1
VG Size 743.16 GB
PE Size 4.00 MB
Total PE 190250
Alloc PE / Size 175807 / 686.75 GB
Free PE / Size 14443 / 56.42 GB
VG UUID yV2ADe-MeJd-dHbd-ExLP-AIu3-OTA2-u46qhl
Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I
wouldn't like to loose the data.
If it helps, my setup looks like that:
HDD1-sda2-\
HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
HDD3-sdc2-|
HDD4-sdd2-/
I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-15 11:50 [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean? Tomasz Chmielewski
@ 2007-02-15 15:23 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-16 7:47 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Chmielewski @ 2007-02-15 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
> Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum error":
>
> # vgdisplay
> /dev/sda2: Checksum error
> --- Volume group ---
> VG Name LVM2
> System ID
> Format lvm2
> Metadata Areas 1
> Metadata Sequence No 49
> VG Access read/write
> VG Status resizable
> MAX LV 0
> Cur LV 34
> Open LV 34
> Max PV 0
> Cur PV 1
> Act PV 1
> VG Size 743.16 GB
> PE Size 4.00 MB
> Total PE 190250
> Alloc PE / Size 175807 / 686.75 GB
> Free PE / Size 14443 / 56.42 GB
> VG UUID yV2ADe-MeJd-dHbd-ExLP-AIu3-OTA2-u46qhl
>
>
> Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I
> wouldn't like to loose the data.
>
> If it helps, my setup looks like that:
>
> HDD1-sda2-\
> HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
> HDD3-sdc2-|
> HDD4-sdd2-/
>
> I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.
Hmmm... isn't it something that tells about the history of that system?
# lvmdiskscan | egrep '(sd|md)'
/dev/sda2: Checksum error
/dev/md0 [ 1.03 GB]
/dev/md1 [ 1.03 GB]
/dev/sda2 [ 371.58 GB] LVM physical volume
/dev/md2 [ 743.16 GB] LVM physical volume
/dev/sdb2 [ 371.58 GB]
/dev/sdc2 [ 371.58 GB]
/dev/sdd2 [ 371.58 GB]
/dev/md0 is RAID-1 -> swap
/dev/md1 is RAID-1 -> root filesystem
/dev/md2 is RAID-10 -> all LVM volumes
So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time ago,
but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up on
that partition?
Should I do something to fix the things? What?
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-15 15:23 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
@ 2007-02-16 7:47 ` Luca Berra
2007-02-16 9:44 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2007-02-16 7:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:23:33PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum error":
>>
>># vgdisplay
>> /dev/sda2: Checksum error
....
>>
>>Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I
>>wouldn't like to loose the data.
>>
>>If it helps, my setup looks like that:
>>
>>HDD1-sda2-\
>>HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
>>HDD3-sdc2-|
>>HDD4-sdd2-/
>>
>>I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.
>
...
>
>So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time ago,
>but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up on
>that partition?
I don't think so. if sda2 is part of a raid10 md array probably the
beginning sector of the md device maps to the beginning sector of the
real device, hence lvm will find an lvm signature on /dev/sda2.
>Should I do something to fix the things? What?
yes, re-enable md_component_detection in lvm.conf, why did you disable
that?
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-16 7:47 ` Luca Berra
@ 2007-02-16 9:44 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-17 12:56 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Chmielewski @ 2007-02-16 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Luca Berra schrieb:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:23:33PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>> Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>> Recently, I used "vgdisplay", and noticed that it gives a "checksum
>>> error":
>>>
>>> # vgdisplay
>>> /dev/sda2: Checksum error
> ....
>>>
>>> Should I be scared? What does it mean? What should I do about it? I
>>> wouldn't like to loose the data.
>>>
>>> If it helps, my setup looks like that:
>>>
>>> HDD1-sda2-\
>>> HDD2-sdb2-|__RAID-10--LVM-2
>>> HDD3-sdc2-|
>>> HDD4-sdd2-/
>>>
>>> I'm running 2.6.17.8 kernel.
>>
> ...
>>
>> So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time
>> ago, but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up
>> on that partition?
>
> I don't think so. if sda2 is part of a raid10 md array probably the
> beginning sector of the md device maps to the beginning sector of the
> real device, hence lvm will find an lvm signature on /dev/sda2.
Is there a way to check if it's really the case?
There's something wrong with /dev/sda2 - lvmdiskscan claims it's a
371.58 GB LVM physical volume, while /dev/md2 is the physical volume I use.
/dev/sda2 [ 371.58 GB] LVM physical volume
/dev/md2 [ 743.16 GB] LVM physical volume
>> Should I do something to fix the things? What?
> yes, re-enable md_component_detection in lvm.conf, why did you disable
> that?
Certainly I didn't touch anything in /etc/lvm/*.
If I look into /etc/lvm/lvm.conf, it says:
devices {
(...)
# By default, LVM2 will ignore devices used as components of
# software RAID (md) devices by looking for md superblocks.
# 1 enables; 0 disables.
md_component_detection = 1
}
It's enabled.
So the problem is somewhere else. Where?
BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
"smartctl" says all four disks are fine (they are quite new, too), so
it's definitely not a hardware problem.
I guess one way to fix it would be mark all partitions faulty on
/dev/sda, and then, to recreate the RAIDs.
But I'm curious to know how could I handle such a situation if I didn't
have RAID.
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-16 9:44 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
@ 2007-02-17 12:56 ` Luca Berra
2007-02-17 18:34 ` Alasdair G Kergon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2007-02-17 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>So this basically means, that LVM was set up on /dev/sda2 some time
>>>ago, but it was never removed from there - instead, RAID-10 was set up
>>>on that partition?
>>
>>I don't think so. if sda2 is part of a raid10 md array probably the
>>beginning sector of the md device maps to the beginning sector of the
>>real device, hence lvm will find an lvm signature on /dev/sda2.
>
>Is there a way to check if it's really the case?
dd?
>There's something wrong with /dev/sda2 - lvmdiskscan claims it's a
>371.58 GB LVM physical volume, while /dev/md2 is the physical volume I use.
>
> /dev/sda2 [ 371.58 GB] LVM physical volume
> /dev/md2 [ 743.16 GB] LVM physical volume
>
>
>>>Should I do something to fix the things? What?
>>yes, re-enable md_component_detection in lvm.conf, why did you disable
>>that?
>
>Certainly I didn't touch anything in /etc/lvm/*.
>If I look into /etc/lvm/lvm.conf, it says:
>
>devices {
>(...)
> # By default, LVM2 will ignore devices used as components of
> # software RAID (md) devices by looking for md superblocks.
> # 1 enables; 0 disables.
> md_component_detection = 1
>}
>
>It's enabled.
>
>So the problem is somewhere else. Where?
with md_component_detection enabled lvm should ignore /dev/sda2.
can you send the output of lvmdiskscan -vvv?
>BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>"smartctl" says all four disks are fine (they are quite new, too), so
>it's definitely not a hardware problem.
sure it is not an hw problem do not worry.
>I guess one way to fix it would be mark all partitions faulty on
>/dev/sda, and then, to recreate the RAIDs.
>But I'm curious to know how could I handle such a situation if I didn't
>have RAID.
what would it fix? you have no problem except lvm2 believing sda2 is an
lvm volume which is not.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-17 12:56 ` Luca Berra
@ 2007-02-17 18:34 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2007-02-22 13:21 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Alasdair G Kergon @ 2007-02-17 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> >BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
Alasdair
--
agk@redhat.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-17 18:34 ` Alasdair G Kergon
@ 2007-02-22 13:21 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-22 13:55 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Chmielewski @ 2007-02-22 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>> BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>
> I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
> for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
Hmm, I must try that.
I'll let the list know in a week or so.
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-22 13:21 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
@ 2007-02-22 13:55 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-25 8:38 ` Luca Berra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Chmielewski @ 2007-02-22 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
> Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>> BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>>> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>>> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>>
>> I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
>> for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
>
> Hmm, I must try that.
>
> I'll let the list know in a week or so.
Hmm, I can't compile that:
(...)
gcc -c -I. -I../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -fPIC -Wall -Wundef -Wshadow
-Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations
-Wnested-externs -Winline -Wmissing-noreturn -O2 striped/striped.c -o
striped/striped.o
report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:67: warning: its scope is only this definition or
declaration, which is probably not what you want
report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_string_disp?:
report/report.c:69: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_field_string?
report/report.c:69: warning: nested extern declaration of
?dm_report_field_string?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:74: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:74: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:83: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:83: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_devices_disp?:
report/report.c:116: warning: implicit declaration of function ?dm_snprintf?
report/report.c:116: warning: nested extern declaration of ?dm_snprintf?
report/report.c:139: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_field_set_value?
report/report.c:139: warning: nested extern declaration of
?dm_report_field_set_value?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:146: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:146: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:176: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:176: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_modules_disp?:
report/report.c:189: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_tags_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:189: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_tags_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:194: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:194: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_vgfmt_disp?:
report/report.c:203: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_string_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:203: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_string_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:208: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:208: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvfmt_disp?:
report/report.c:218: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_string_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:218: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_string_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:223: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:223: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_lvkmaj_disp?:
report/report.c:230: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_field_int?
report/report.c:230: warning: nested extern declaration of
?dm_report_field_int?
report/report.c:232: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_field_uint64?
report/report.c:232: warning: nested extern declaration of
?dm_report_field_uint64?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:237: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:237: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:251: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:251: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:336: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:336: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:362: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:362: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:406: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:406: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:421: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:421: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:435: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:435: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:453: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:453: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:487: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:487: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:506: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:506: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:536: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:536: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:565: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:565: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_vgsize_disp?:
report/report.c:572: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:572: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:577: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:577: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_segstart_disp?:
report/report.c:584: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:584: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:589: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:589: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_segsize_disp?:
report/report.c:596: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:596: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:601: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:601: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_chunksize_disp?:
report/report.c:611: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:611: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:616: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:616: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvused_disp?:
report/report.c:627: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:627: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:632: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:632: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvfree_disp?:
report/report.c:643: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:643: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:648: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:648: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_pvsize_disp?:
report/report.c:659: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:659: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:664: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:664: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_devsize_disp?:
report/report.c:672: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:672: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:677: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:677: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_vgfree_disp?:
report/report.c:684: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:684: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_size64_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:689: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:689: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:709: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:709: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_uint32_disp?:
report/report.c:711: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_field_uint32?
report/report.c:711: warning: nested extern declaration of
?dm_report_field_uint32?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:716: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:716: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_int32_disp?:
report/report.c:718: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_field_int32?
report/report.c:718: warning: nested extern declaration of
?dm_report_field_int32?
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:723: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:723: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c: In function ?_lvsegcount_disp?:
report/report.c:730: warning: passing argument 1 of ?_uint32_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c:730: warning: passing argument 3 of ?_uint32_disp? from
incompatible pointer type
report/report.c: At top level:
report/report.c:735: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:735: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:785: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:785: warning: ?struct dm_report? declared inside
parameter list
report/report.c:856: error: array type has incomplete element type
report/report.c:873: error: array type has incomplete element type
In file included from report/report.c:874:
report/columns.h:21: error: ?DM_REPORT_FIELD_TYPE_STRING? undeclared
here (not in a function)
report/columns.h:24: error: ?DM_REPORT_FIELD_TYPE_NUMBER? undeclared
here (not in a function)
report/report.c: In function ?report_init?:
report/report.c:889: error: ?DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_ALIGNED? undeclared (first
use in this function)
report/report.c:889: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only
once
report/report.c:889: error: for each function it appears in.)
report/report.c:892: error: ?DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_BUFFERED? undeclared
(first use in this function)
report/report.c:895: error: ?DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_HEADINGS? undeclared
(first use in this function)
report/report.c:897: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_init?
report/report.c:897: warning: nested extern declaration of ?dm_report_init?
report/report.c:898: warning: return makes pointer from integer without
a cast
report/report.c: In function ?report_object?:
report/report.c:916: warning: implicit declaration of function
?dm_report_object?
report/report.c:916: warning: nested extern declaration of
?dm_report_object?
make[1]: *** [report/report.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/lvm2/LVM2.2.02.22/lib'
make: *** [lib] Error 2
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-22 13:55 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
@ 2007-02-25 8:38 ` Luca Berra
2007-03-02 11:36 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Luca Berra @ 2007-02-25 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
>>>On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>>>>On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>>>BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>>>>mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>>>>understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>>>
>>>I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or later
>>>for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
>>
>>Hmm, I must try that.
>>
>>I'll let the list know in a week or so.
>
>Hmm, I can't compile that:
>
>(...)
>gcc -c -I. -I../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -fPIC -Wall -Wundef -Wshadow
>-Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations
>-Wnested-externs -Winline -Wmissing-noreturn -O2 striped/striped.c -o
>striped/striped.o
>report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
>parameter list
Did you update device-mapper as well?
Anyway the patch to support both endian versions of the md superblock is
very small and can be applied to lvm earlier than 2.02.21
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/LVM2/lib/device/dev-md.c.diff?r1=1.3&r2=1.4&cvsroot=lvm2
L.
--
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-02-25 8:38 ` Luca Berra
@ 2007-03-02 11:36 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-03-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Chmielewski @ 2007-03-02 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Luca Berra schrieb:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>> Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
>>> Alasdair G Kergon schrieb:
>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:44:54AM +0100, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, the machine is running Debian etch (ARM port).
>>>>> mmm i don't have an arm maybe this is the issue why lvm does not
>>>>> understand that sda2 is a md component?!?
>>>>
>>>> I've not followed this thread, but you must use version 2.02.21 or
>>>> later
>>>> for the ARM architecture with md (or backport the patch).
>>>
>>> Hmm, I must try that.
>>>
>>> I'll let the list know in a week or so.
>>
>> Hmm, I can't compile that:
>>
>> (...)
>> gcc -c -I. -I../include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -fPIC -Wall -Wundef -Wshadow
>> -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes
>> -Wmissing-declarations -Wnested-externs -Winline -Wmissing-noreturn
>> -O2 striped/striped.c -o striped/striped.o
>> report/report.c:67: warning: ?struct dm_report_field? declared inside
>> parameter list
> Did you update device-mapper as well?
>
> Anyway the patch to support both endian versions of the md superblock is
> very small and can be applied to lvm earlier than 2.02.21
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/LVM2/lib/device/dev-md.c.diff?r1=1.3&r2=1.4&cvsroot=lvm2
Curiously, I updated lvm to Debian's 2.02.06-3, rebooted (machine was in
a rather weird state), and the issue is gone.
With Debian's libdevmapper-dev 1.02.08-1 it doesn't compile; I didn't
try to upgrade it anymore.
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean?
2007-03-02 11:36 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
@ 2007-03-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Chmielewski @ 2007-03-02 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LVM general discussion and development
Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb:
(...)
> Curiously, I updated lvm to Debian's 2.02.06-3, rebooted (machine was in
> a rather weird state), and the issue is gone.
>
> With Debian's libdevmapper-dev 1.02.08-1 it doesn't compile; I didn't
> try to upgrade it anymore.
As described in another post from today ("moving logical volumes to
another system *remotely* - how?"), perhaps the issue had nothing to do
with lvm tools, but with kernel?
I use 2.6.17.8 on that ARM machine, the kernel oopses after I create a
snapshot, invalidate it (make it full), and try to remove it.
I'll try to upgrade to a newest stable kernel to see if anything changed
(it will take some time, though).
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-02 11:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-02-15 11:50 [linux-lvm] vgdisplay - checksum error - what does it mean? Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-15 15:23 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-16 7:47 ` Luca Berra
2007-02-16 9:44 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-17 12:56 ` Luca Berra
2007-02-17 18:34 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2007-02-22 13:21 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-22 13:55 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-02-25 8:38 ` Luca Berra
2007-03-02 11:36 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
2007-03-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Chmielewski
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.