From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263795AbTLJRs6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:48:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263796AbTLJRs5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:48:57 -0500 Received: from cibs9.sns.it ([192.167.206.29]:40196 "EHLO cibs9.sns.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263795AbTLJRsy (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:48:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:48:47 +0100 (CET) From: venom@sns.it To: Joe Thornber cc: Paul Jakma , Jens Axboe , Marcelo Tosatti , Linux Mailing List Subject: Re: Device-mapper submission for 2.4 In-Reply-To: <20031210174418.GF476@reti> Message-ID: 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 On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Joe Thornber wrote: > > The LVM1 driver was removed because dm covered the same functionality > + lots more, and is more flexible. The LVM2 tools still understand > the LVM1 metadata format, so there is no problem about not being able > to read data in 2.6. So I was right. Well, if back compatibility works, this solves most of the problem. > The main reason for submitting dm to 2.4 was > that there are a lot of people out there who want to use LVM2/EVMS > tools with 2.4, and kept asking me to do it. If this is against > Marcelos current policy then so be it; I probably should have checked > with him before spamming lkml with the submission. This is a good point, but patches are available, so those people can stil use it, am I wrong? Luigi