On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Yep. I chose 32K unused space in the prototype filesystem I wrote [1, 2.4
> era]. I'm pretty sure I got that number from some other filesystem, maybe
> even some NTFS incarnation.
NTFS superblock (and the partial mirror copy) can be anywhere except
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> But 'fusermount -u /tmp/test' does work, doesn't it?
You're submitting patches to get rid of fusermount, aren't you?
Most users absolutely have no idea what fusermount is and they would
__really__ like to see umount(8) working finally.
S
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> This is an experimental patch for supporing unprivileged mounts and
> umounts.
User unmount unfortunately still doesn't work if the kernel doesn't have
the unprivileged mount support but as we discussed this in last July that
shouldn't be needed f
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Karel Zak wrote:
> mount:
>- doesn't drop privileges properly when calling helpers [Ludwig Nussel]
How can a mount helper know without being setuid root and redundantly doing
mount(8)'s work that the user is allowed to mount via the 'user[s]' fstab
mount option?
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
> cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
> worth the effort.
Most users seem to care deeply about "things just work". Here is why
ntfs-3g also took th
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> On Tue 2008-01-08 12:35:09, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> > For the suspend issue, there are also no easy solutions.
>
> What are the non-easy solutions?
A practical point of view I've seen only fuse rootfs mounts to be a
problem. I remember Ubun
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:35 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > +static int reserve_user_mount(void)
> > > +{
> > > + int err = 0;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
> > > + if (nr_user_mounts >= max_user_mounts && !capable(CAP
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> And another of my pet peeves with ->bmap is that it uses 0 to mean "sparse"
> which causes a conflict on NTFS at least as block zero is part of the $Boot
> system file so it is a real, valid block... NTFS uses -1 to denote sparse
> blocks internal
