On 4/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YOU GUYS WILL LAUGH ABOUT THIS:
No, I am crying actually. Dear post-masters, can we have this thread
shit-canned, please?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip arguments FUBAR]
oscar
And the award as Troll Of The Year goes to: johnrobertbanks.
/oscar
/ronni
+--+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+--+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:16:59 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am not looking to defend Hans - he is likely to be in jail and no
longer a factor for a long time. Nor am I looking to make or support
claims for Reiser4.
Why not defend Hans? He is in jail on what appear to be trumped-up
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:39:12 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
YOU GUYS WILL LAUGH ABOUT THIS:
I forgot the all the statistics that might support the sase for REISER4
inclusion.
Well, here it all is:
*plonk* - The sound of a sender address entering a procmail /dev/null filter.
Come back when
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 09:16:59PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL.
Fuck off. Cheerleading like this only hurts your cause.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
The following patches introduce new branch-management code into Unionfs as
well as fix a number of stability issues and resource leaks. For detailed
announcement, see end of this email.
As before, there is a git repo at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jsipek/unionfs.git
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Helper inline functions to perform Unionfs's mntget/put ops on lower
branches.
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[jsipek: cleanup branching in unionfs_mnt{get,put} and compile fixes]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
From: Erez Zadok ezkcs.sunysb.edu
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok ezkcs.sunysb.edu
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek jsipekcs.sunysb.edu
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/drop_caches.c |4 +++-
include/linux/mm.h |1 +
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This should help catch races between the VFS and the branch-management code.
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/inode.c | 15 +++
fs/unionfs/rename.c |3 +++
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Locking/concurrency/race fixes. Use the unionfs superblock rwsem, and grab
the read lock around every op that uses branch-related information, such as
branch counters. Grab the write rwsem lock in operations which attempt to
change branch information, such as
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gcc4 decided to inline do_remount_{add,del,mode}_option creating an 600 byte
stack abuser on a x86_64 test box.
Reported by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We have to read-lock the superblock rwsem, and we have to revalidate the
parent dentry and this one. A branch-management operation could have taken
place, mid-way through a VFS operation that eventually reaches
unionfs_create(). So we have to ensure
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
index
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rewrite unionfs_d_revalidate code to avoid stack-unfriendly recursion: split
into a call to revalidate just one dentry, and an interative driver function
to revalidate an entire dentry-parent chain.
Fix vfsmount ref leaks which prevented lower f/s from being
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/fanout.h |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/fanout.h b/fs/unionfs/fanout.h
index 3d1dd4c..e8c0fee
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/main.c | 52 +++--
fs/unionfs/super.c | 612 +++-
fs/unionfs/union.h |6 +
3 files changed,
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/dentry.c |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/dentry.c b/fs/unionfs/dentry.c
index b08842f..9eb143d
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Each branch gets a unique ID, which helps during branch additions,
deletions, and changes, to locate where branches were moved to, and perform
proper reference-counting. This is useful even if the same directory was
added more than once to union.
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Describe dynamic branch-management introduced by subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/filesystems/unionfs/concepts.txt |5 ++
From: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/fanout.h |8
fs/unionfs/union.h |2 +-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/fanout.h
Jörn Engel writes:
Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()? If I understand Heiko
correctly, the alternative would slow s390 down for every syscall,
including more performance-critical ones.
The alternative that Jakub suggested wouldn't slow s390 down.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this
I second that award. Three threads in as many days, all idiotic
trolling. Can this idiot be banned from the list? Sheesh!
Ronni Nielsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip arguments FUBAR]
oscar
And the award as Troll Of The Year goes to: johnrobertbanks.
/oscar
/ronni
+--+
|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, Richard Knutsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you
referenced to in a reply...
TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed.
Oh, took it to be from 5-6
One thing that is missing from this series is the ability to restrict
user mounts to private namespaces. The reason is that private
namespaces have still not gained the momentum and support needed for
painless user experience. So such a feature would not yet get enough
On Mon, 9 April 2007 23:01:42 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Jörn Engel writes:
Wouldn't that work be confined to fallocate()? If I understand Heiko
correctly, the alternative would slow s390 down for every syscall,
including more performance-critical ones.
The alternative that Jakub
On Apr 9 2007 12:55, Ronni Nielsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip arguments FUBAR]
oscar
And the award as Troll Of The Year goes to: johnrobertbanks.
/oscar
The year is not even over and you already picked your favorite -
who bribed you? :-)
Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One thing that is missing from this series is the ability to restrict
user mounts to private namespaces. The reason is that private
namespaces have still not gained the momentum and support needed for
painless user experience. So
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:41:08 +0200, Jan Engelhardt said:
On Apr 9 2007 12:55, Ronni Nielsen wrote:
oscar
And the award as Troll Of The Year goes to: johnrobertbanks.
/oscar
The year is not even over and you already picked your favorite -
who bribed you? :-)
The vast right-wing
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 12:07 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
- need to set up mount propagation from global namespace to private
ones, mount(8) does not yet have options to configure propagation
Hmm, I guess I get lost using my own little
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:53:51 -0400 Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The following patches introduce new branch-management code into Unionfs as
well as fix a number of stability issues and resource leaks.
I have a mental note that unionfs is in the stuck state, due to general
Ram Pai wrote:
It is in FC6. I dont know the status off upstream util-linux. I did
submit the patch many times to Adrian Bunk (the then util-linux
maintainer) and got no response. I have not pushed the patches to the
new maintainer(Karel Zak?) though.
Well, do that, then :)
Seriously. The
On 08 Apr 2007 06:32:26 +0200, Christer Weinigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lennart. Tell me again that these results from
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
are not of interest to
mount command does not support passing on mount options such as atime and
diratime to the mounting filesystems. So it is OK if one wants to mount
a filesytem with options such as noatime and nodiratime but mount options
such as atime and diratime get filtered out.
Today cifs client does not
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:58PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: Marc Eshel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
Acquiring a lock on a cluster filesystem may require communication with remote
hosts, and to avoid blocking lockd or nfsd threads during such communication,
we allow the results to
On Apr 9 2007 10:53, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
The following patches introduce new branch-management code into Unionfs as
well as fix a number of stability issues and resource leaks. For detailed
announcement, see end of this email.
I have to seriously ask: why don't we consider aufs? Without
The one in pam-0.99.6.3-29.1 in opensuse-10.2 is totally broken. Are
you interested in the details? I can reproduce it, but forgot to note
down the details of the brokenness.
I don't know how far removed that is from the one being used by redhat,
but assuming it's the same, then
One thing that is missing from this series is the ability to restrict
user mounts to private namespaces. The reason is that private
namespaces have still not gained the momentum and support needed for
painless user experience. So such a feature would not yet get enough
attention and
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One thing that is missing from this series is the ability to restrict
user mounts to private namespaces. The reason is that private
namespaces have still not gained the momentum and support needed for
painless user experience. So such a
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
This patchset adds support for keeping mount ownership information in
the kernel, and allow unprivileged mount(2) and umount(2) in certain
cases.
Well, I'd like to feel all smart and point out some bugs, but the code
all reads very nicely, seems to
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:49:48AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:53:51 -0400 Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The following patches introduce new branch-management code into Unionfs as
well as fix a number of stability issues and resource leaks.
First, a
It's very common for file systems to need to zero part or all of a page, the
simplist way is just to use kmap_atomic() and memset(). There's actually a
library function in include/linux/highmem.h that does exactly that, but it's
confusingly named memclear_highpage_flush(), which is descriptive of
It's common for file systems to need to zero data on either side of a write,
if a page is not Uptodate during prepare_write. It just so happens that
simple_prepare_write() in libfs.c does exactly that, so we can avoid
duplication and just call that function to zero page data.
Compile tested on
42 matches
Mail list logo
