On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:20:31AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 04:44:43AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > That's true but I don't think an extent data structure means we can
> > become too far divorced from the pagecache or the native block size
> > -- what will end up ha
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:20:31AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 04:44:43AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > That's true but I don't think an extent data structure means we can
> > become too far divorced from the pagecache or the native block size
> > -- what will end up happeni
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:49:13PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -06
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 23:49 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
>
> > Correct, but for swap files that's not an issue - no user should be
> able
> > too read them, and FA_MKSWAP would really need root privileges to
> execute.
>
> Will the FA_MKSWAP mode still be required with your suggested change
> of
>
On Jun 28, 2007 23:27 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:55:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Are we all supposed to re-review the entire patchset (or at least #4 and
> > #7) again?
>
> As I mentioned in the note above, only patches #4 and #7 were new and
> thus these nee
Andrew Morton wrote:
b) We do what we normally don't do and reserve the syscall slots in mainline.
If everyone agrees it's going to happen... why not?
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More ma
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 11:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:27:57 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Please drop the non-ext4 patches from the ext4 tree and send incremental
> > > patches against the (non-ext4) fallocate patches in -mm.
> >
> > Please le
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:27:57 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please drop the non-ext4 patches from the ext4 tree and send incremental
> > patches against the (non-ext4) fallocate patches in -mm.
>
> Please let us know what you think of Mingming's suggestion of posting
> all t
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > > Can you clarify - what is the current
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:04:56AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:59:08AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:14:00PM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > On Jun 26, 2007 17:37 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > > I think, modifying ctime/mtime should
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:55:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:58:10 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > N O T E:
> > ---
> > 1) Only Patches 4/7 and 7/7 are NEW. Rest of them are _already_ part
> >of ext4 patch queue git tree hosted by Ted.
>
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Struct iattr already contains ia_file since commit cc4e69de from
> Miklos (which is related to commit befc649c). Use this to pass
> struct file down the setattr hooks. This allows LSMs to distinguish
> operations on file descriptors from operations
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
... or, alternatively, add a subfield to the first field (which would
entail escaping whatever separator we choose):
/dev/md6 /export ext3 rw,data=ordered 0 0
/dev/md6:/users/foo /home/foo ext3 rw,data=ordered 0 0
/dev/md6:/users/bar /home/bar ext3 rw,data=ordered 0 0
Hi!
> > ... or, alternatively, add a subfield to the first field (which would
> > entail escaping whatever separator we choose):
> >
> > /dev/md6 /export ext3 rw,data=ordered 0 0
> > /dev/md6:/users/foo /home/foo ext3 rw,data=ordered 0 0
> > /dev/md6:/users/bar /home/bar ext3 rw,data=ordered 0 0
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 02:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please drop the non-ext4 patches from the ext4 tree and send incremental
> patches against the (non-ext4) fallocate patches in -mm.
>
The ext4 fallocate() patches are dependent on the core fallocate()
patches, so ext4 patch-queue and git t
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:13 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Ok. This is a bit more complex now since we remove suid bits on
> truncate, but don't set ATTR_FORCE.
>
> Here's a patch that should do this. I know there's a general
> aversion to adding new flags to vfs structures, but I couldn't think of
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 04:44:43AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:35:48AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 07:50:56AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Lets look at a typical example of how IO actually gets done today,
> > > starting with sys_write():
>
> > Anyone can apply the apparmour patch to their tree, they get the
> > choice that way. Nobody is currently prevented from using apparmour
> > if they want to, any such suggestion is pure rubbish.
>
> The exact same argument was made prior to SELinux going upstream.
Its made for every thing be
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:58:10 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> N O T E:
> ---
> 1) Only Patches 4/7 and 7/7 are NEW. Rest of them are _already_ part
>of ext4 patch queue git tree hosted by Ted.
Why the heck are replacements for these things being sent out again when
they
19 matches
Mail list logo
