On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:42:12PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:38:20PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed reproducer.
> >
> > It's weird, as the server is basically just setting the transmitted
> > umask and then calling into the vfs to handle
Hi Bruce,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:38:20PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed reproducer.
>
> It's weird, as the server is basically just setting the transmitted
> umask and then calling into the vfs to handle the rest, so it's not much
> different from any other user.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:38:20PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed reproducer.
>
> It's weird, as the server is basically just setting the transmitted
> umask and then calling into the vfs to handle the rest, so it's not much
> different from any other user. But the same
Thanks for the detailed reproducer.
It's weird, as the server is basically just setting the transmitted
umask and then calling into the vfs to handle the rest, so it's not much
different from any other user. But the same reproducer run just on the
ext4 filesystem does give the right
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:50:35AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Honestly I don't think I currently have a regression test for this so
> it's possible I could have missed something upstream. I haven't seen
> any reports, though
>
> ZFS's ACL implementation is very different from any
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> notfound 962681 5.5.13-2
Bug #962681 [linux] battery drain during system shutdown
There is no source info for the package 'linux' at version '5.5.13-2' with
architecture ''
Unable to make a source version for version '5.5.13-2'
Ignoring request
Hi Bruce,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:50:35AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:45:27AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > I disagree with this assessment. All of the reporters have been using
> > ZFS, but this could indicate an absence of testers using other
> >
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 962254 NFS v4.2 broken between 4.9 and 4.15
Bug #962254 [src:linux] NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2
Changed Bug title to 'NFS v4.2 broken between 4.9 and 4.15' from 'NFS(v4)
broken at 4.19.118-2'.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:45:27AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> I disagree with this assessment. All of the reporters have been using
> ZFS, but this could indicate an absence of testers using other
> filesystems. We need someone with a NFS server which has a 4.15+ kernel
> and uses a
If you are violating our license please also don't spam our list when
using your crappy combination.
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:28:24 +0100
Source: linux
Binary: linux-support-4.19.0-0.bpo.9 linux-doc-4.19 linux-cpupower libcpupower1
libcpupower-dev usbip hyperv-daemons lockdep liblockdep4.19 liblockdep-dev
libbpf4.19
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:55:37 +0100
Source: linux
Architecture: source
Version: 5.6.14-2~bpo10+1
Distribution: buster-backports
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team
Changed-By: Ben Hutchings
Closes: 956197
12 matches
Mail list logo
