On 20.08.2010 20:27, Josh Berry wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 05:03, Goffredo Baroncellikreij...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, 19 August, 2010, James Smith wrote:
This patch randomizes the error codes and also fixes up some typos
including
capitalization in the output.
It would almost be
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34, Andreas Philipp
philipp.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20.08.2010 20:27, Josh Berry wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 05:03, Goffredo Baroncellikreij...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, 19 August, 2010, James Smith wrote:
This patch randomizes the error codes and
On Friday, 20 August, 2010, Benjamin Griese wrote:
Hello guys,
I would also prefer doing it in an all-in-one tool with various parameters.
I like the concept how the Solaris-Devs did it by consolidating every
special configuration tool to an xyzadm-binary (idea: btrfsadm? i.e.
similar to
On 20.08.2010 20:49, Josh Berry wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34, Andreas Philipp
philipp.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20.08.2010 20:27, Josh Berry wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 05:03, Goffredo Baroncellikreij...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, 19 August, 2010, James Smith wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:00, Andreas Philipp
philipp.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20.08.2010 20:49, Josh Berry wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34, Andreas Philipp
philipp.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20.08.2010 20:27, Josh Berry wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 05:03, Goffredo
Hi,
It seems that seed devices are slightly broken in Linux 2.6.35. I have
been seeing issues with the read-only nature of the seed-device not
being respected: the seed device is written to and corrupted. I don't
have a concrete test case for that yet because I am seeing other issues
with
Hi,
I just had a look at how btrfs ioctl searches the tree for new items and
while looking at the code I've noticed that maximum transaction id as
specified in the search is rather useless.
If I understand right, transaction id is stored in a header of each node.
Thus when any item of the
While searching a tree we didn't properly check number of items we really
stored in user's buffer thus possibly exceeding number of items requested
by user. This was mostly harmless since actual buffer overflow is checked
correctly in a different place. Anyway, let's fix the check.
Signed-off-by:
Truthfully, this is probably this first I've actually done in C++; I
used to do PHP and a small amount of Javascript. I like that the tool
has seen some work and decided to at least attempt a bit more work
towards a decent tool.
Re: ERR codes. I don't know if a uniform approach is what's needed
