2008/5/3, Sage Weil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Yan-
>
> On Sat, 3 May 2008, Yan Zheng wrote:
> > I think the clone ioctl won't work in some corner case. The big loop
> > in btrfs_ioctl_clone uses path->slots[0]++ and btrfs_next_leaf to get
> > next item in the tree. However, this approach works only
Hi Yan-
On Sat, 3 May 2008, Yan Zheng wrote:
> I think the clone ioctl won't work in some corner case. The big loop
> in btrfs_ioctl_clone uses path->slots[0]++ and btrfs_next_leaf to get
> next item in the tree. However, this approach works only when the
> layout of tree keeps unchangeed. In btrf
Hello Sage,
I think the clone ioctl won't work in some corner case. The big loop
in btrfs_ioctl_clone uses path->slots[0]++ and btrfs_next_leaf to get
next item in the tree. However, this approach works only when the
layout of tree keeps unchangeed. In btrfs_ioctl_clone, both
btrfs_insert_file_ext
On Fri, 2 May 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
> Sage's work has been pushed into the stable and unstable trees, along with a
Thanks!
For the transaction ioctls... would it make more sense to specify a
string of ops to apply atomically in a vector instead of exposing the raw
transaction start/end to
On Friday 02 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> >
> > [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
> >
> >> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
> >> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
> >> Maybe have make apply a patch
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi-
>
> I'm working on a clone ioctl that will quickly and efficiently duplicate
> the contents of a file, e.g.
Sage's work has been pushed into the stable and unstable trees, along with a
small command called bcp to trigger the clone ioctls. bcp is
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jeff Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour
> >>> indepen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour
>>> independent. If CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR exists, then the AA code is
>>> compiled. This is certainly
On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour
>> independent. If CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR exists, then the AA code is
>> compiled. This is certainly the case for Hardy. Neither Kees or myself
>> are aware of any reason
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
> [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
>
>> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
>> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
>> Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
>> succeeds? Does this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Gardner wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>>
>> [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
>>
>>> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
>>> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
>>> Maybe have m
On Friday 2008-05-02 16:38, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>> Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if
>> the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
>
>Do we really need to support kernels
On Friday 02 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell
> > if the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
>
> Do we really need to support kernels com
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if
> the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
Do we really need to support kernels compiled with the apparmour patch
applied but not enable
On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
[ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
> Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
> succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
>
> http://www.d
On Friday 2008-05-02 16:15, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
>Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
>exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
>Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
>succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
>
>http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/patches/
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
> > work for Hardy. However the next dev
On Friday 2008-05-02 14:52, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
>>
>> make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
^
M=$PWD
>This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues),
If it oopses,
On Friday 2008-05-02 14:52, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
>>
>> make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
>
>This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues), but I'd
>prefer that people not have to know what apparmor is or i
On Friday 02 May 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does
> not have the APPARMOR patches, so just know
20 matches
Mail list logo
