This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem a number of strange error messages
which do not indicate the real problem. This patch changes
that
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem a number of strange error messages
which
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem a number of strange error
On 01/25/2013 06:41 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:03:19 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:41 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs
On 01/25/2013 06:55 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:29:44AM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:55 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:29:44 -0500
Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
After all, I do not need to be root to execute btrfs --version.
Is that all that comes to mind? I just did
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=fs.img bs=1M count=2048
2048+0 records in
2048+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB)
On 01/25/2013 07:17 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:03:19 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:41 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru wrote:
The user does not have to be root, they can be a member of the group disk
to manage this device.
Also some or all of the tools accept not just a block device, but also a
regular file as their parameter.
Wouldn't it be better to
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there
are some things (btrfs fi show comes to mind) which will need root and
I am going to explore doing something for that case. And it also might
be reasonable
On 1/25/13 5:32 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem a number of strange error messages
which do not indicate
On 01/25/2013 10:04 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that
there are some things (btrfs fi show comes to mind) which will need
root and I am going to explore doing something
On 25/01/13 14:43, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:29:44AM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:55 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as implemented
and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there are some things
(btrfs fi show comes to mind) which will need root and I am going to
On 1/25/13 9:04 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that
there are some things (btrfs fi show comes to mind) which will need
root and I am going to explore doing something for
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there
are some things (btrfs fi show comes to mind) which will need root and
I am going to explore
On 01/26/2013 03:18 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Gene Czarcinskig...@czarc.net wrote:
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there
are some things (btrfs fi show comes to mind) which
18 matches
Mail list logo
