Joel Becker wrote:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 11:01:07AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
And the 10% where it doesn't work it is a real pain to figure what goes
wrong due to the completely unreadable Makefiles generated by autotools.
After all they are not Makefiles, they are shellscripts embedded
Yehuda, I have added your patch for NTLMv2 signatures for CIFS. I had
to change about 10 places due to whitespace changes. It tested out
fine, but would appreciate one more check.
The patch is:
On Mon, 9 July 2007 08:11:22 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
If CONFIG_EXT2_FS_POSIX_ACL is not configured, ext2_clear_inode() will be
empty
function. However, there still will be call and immediate return which can be
avoided.
[...]
+#ifdef CONFIG_EXT2_FS_POSIX_ACL
static void
On Thu, Jul 05 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Jens.
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, May 28 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
I think the implementation priorities here are:
1/ implement a zero-length BIO_RW_BARRIER option.
2/ Use it (or otherwise) to make all dm and md modules handle
barriers
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Mon, 9 July 2007 09:29:38 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 12:45:35PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
Oh certainly! I should dust off my dcache_static patch. Some dentries
are hands-off for the shrinker, basically mountpoints and tmpfs. The
patch moves
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Firstly, what is the buffer layer? The buffer layer isn't really a
buffer layer as in the buffer cache of unix: the block device cache
is unified with the pagecache (in terms of the pagecache, a blkdev
file is just like any other, but with a 1:1
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 10:34:32AM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Mon, 9 July 2007 08:11:22 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
If CONFIG_EXT2_FS_POSIX_ACL is not configured, ext2_clear_inode() will be
empty
function. However, there still will be call and immediate return which can
be
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 20:25 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jul 5 2007 15:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
@@ -1911,13 +1911,27 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mknodat(int dfd, con
error = do_path_lookup(dfd, tmp, LOOKUP_PARENT, nd);
if (error)
goto out;
+
dentry =
On Mon, 9 July 2007 22:01:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Yes. Note that ext2_clear_inode() is referenced from ext2_sops, so even
empty, it leaves traces in resulting kernel.
Is that your opinion or have you actually measured a difference?
I strongly suspect that compilers are smart enough
On Monday 09 July 2007, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Joel Becker wrote:
And if you think that all packages should Just Work on all
Linuxen, with out any build-time detection, try determining the
differing udev layouts of FC6, FC7, Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE9, SuSE10, etc.
s/build/run/ time check
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 22:00 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Mon, 9 July 2007 22:01:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Yes. Note that ext2_clear_inode() is referenced from ext2_sops, so even
empty, it leaves traces in resulting kernel.
Is that your opinion or have you actually measured a
On Mon, 9 July 2007 17:02:20 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
It's not a direct call to a static function. It is called as a
super_ops method. I don't think the overhead is very significant, but
it doesn't look like it could do any harm.
Ah, I missed that fact. Yep, looks fine to me.
Jörn
--
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 16:53 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jul 06, 2007 09:51 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
The use of a mount option means the change attribute could be
inconsistent across mounts. If we really need this, wouldn't it make
more sense for it to be a persistent feature of
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 10:14:06AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Firstly, what is the buffer layer? The buffer layer isn't really a
buffer layer as in the buffer cache of unix: the block device cache
is unified with the pagecache (in terms of the
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hmmm I did not notice that yet but then I have not done much work
there.
Notice what?
The bad code for the buffer heads.
- A real nobh mode. nobh was created I think mainly to avoid problems
with buffer_head memory consumption,
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:59:47PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hmmm I did not notice that yet but then I have not done much work
there.
Notice what?
The bad code for the buffer heads.
Oh. Well my first mail in this thrad listed
On Monday 09 July 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
There are no changes to the filesystem API for large pages (although I
am adding a couple of helpers to do page based bitmap ops). And I don't
want to rely on contiguous memory. Why do you think
17 matches
Mail list logo
