Hi Andrew,
On Sat 22-12-07 00:12:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:51:04 +0100 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Although we don't allow writes over s_maxbytes, it can happen that a file's
> > size is larger than s_maxbytes. For example we can write the file from a
> >
Hi Andrew,
On Sat 22-12-07 00:12:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:51:04 +0100 Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although we don't allow writes over s_maxbytes, it can happen that a file's
size is larger than s_maxbytes. For example we can write the file from a
computer
On Sat 22-12-07 12:03:10, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:12:06AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This patch takes the total text size of the affected nine files from 74167
> > bytes up to 75066 on i386. This is core, core kernel. Ouch.
>
> Yeah, as you note below - this should
On Sat 22-12-07 00:12:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sorry for a late reply but I was on vacation.
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:51:04 +0100 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Although we don't allow writes over s_maxbytes, it can happen that a file's
> > size is larger than s_maxbytes. For
On Sat 22-12-07 00:12:06, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sorry for a late reply but I was on vacation.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:51:04 +0100 Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although we don't allow writes over s_maxbytes, it can happen that a file's
size is larger than s_maxbytes. For example we can
On Sat 22-12-07 12:03:10, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:12:06AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
This patch takes the total text size of the affected nine files from 74167
bytes up to 75066 on i386. This is core, core kernel. Ouch.
Yeah, as you note below - this should be
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:12:06AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> This patch takes the total text size of the affected nine files from 74167
> bytes up to 75066 on i386. This is core, core kernel. Ouch.
Yeah, as you note below - this should be un-inlined.
> It's also pretty fragile. We now
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:51:04 +0100 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although we don't allow writes over s_maxbytes, it can happen that a file's
> size is larger than s_maxbytes. For example we can write the file from a
> computer with a different architecture (which has larger s_maxbytes),
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:51:04 +0100 Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although we don't allow writes over s_maxbytes, it can happen that a file's
size is larger than s_maxbytes. For example we can write the file from a
computer with a different architecture (which has larger s_maxbytes), boot
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:12:06AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
This patch takes the total text size of the affected nine files from 74167
bytes up to 75066 on i386. This is core, core kernel. Ouch.
Yeah, as you note below - this should be un-inlined.
It's also pretty fragile. We now have
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:51:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> nobody seemed to care about this patch, so could you pull it into -mm so
> that it gets broader testing? Thanks.
Oh, this can get my ack btw:
Acked-by: Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
Hi Andrew,
nobody seemed to care about this patch, so could you pull it into -mm so
that it gets broader testing? Thanks.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SUSE Labs, CR
---
Although we don't allow writes over
Hi Andrew,
nobody seemed to care about this patch, so could you pull it into -mm so
that it gets broader testing? Thanks.
Honza
--
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUSE Labs, CR
---
Although we don't allow writes over
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:51:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi Andrew,
nobody seemed to care about this patch, so could you pull it into -mm so
that it gets broader testing? Thanks.
Oh, this can get my ack btw:
Acked-by: Mark Fasheh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
14 matches
Mail list logo
