From: Richard Weinberger
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hostfs: Use noop_fsync for directories
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:43:53 +0100
> Daniel, are you interested in a small kernel project?
Sure, I'm just pretty busy with university right now, I'll probably
pick this back up after exams are finis
From: Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hostfs: Use noop_fsync for directories
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:43:53 +0100
Daniel, are you interested in a small kernel project?
Sure, I'm just pretty busy with university right now, I'll probably
pick this back up after exams
Am 14.01.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:26:38PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> hostfs tries do reduce the amount of syscall between guest and host as much
>> as possible. For file operations it passes everything down to the host but
>> for directory
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:26:38PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> hostfs tries do reduce the amount of syscall between guest and host as much
> as possible. For file operations it passes everything down to the host but
> for directory operations only ->iterate() does.
>
> It is already
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:26:38PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
hostfs tries do reduce the amount of syscall between guest and host as much
as possible. For file operations it passes everything down to the host but
for directory operations only -iterate() does.
It is already horrible
Am 14.01.2015 um 09:39 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:26:38PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
hostfs tries do reduce the amount of syscall between guest and host as much
as possible. For file operations it passes everything down to the host but
for directory operations
Am 13.01.2015 um 23:19 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:15:58PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs
>> because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories.
>> While fsync(2) is allowed to
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:15:58PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs
> because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories.
> While fsync(2) is allowed to fail with EINVAL if the filesystem does not
> support
Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs
because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories.
While fsync(2) is allowed to fail with EINVAL if the filesystem does not
support it we can do better and use noop_fsync() to not confuse userspace
further.
Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs
because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories.
While fsync(2) is allowed to fail with EINVAL if the filesystem does not
support it we can do better and use noop_fsync() to not confuse userspace
further.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:15:58PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs
because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories.
While fsync(2) is allowed to fail with EINVAL if the filesystem does not
support it
Am 13.01.2015 um 23:19 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:15:58PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Daniel reported that dpkg(1) dies if the root filesystem is a hostfs
because it does not expect fsync(2) to fail with EINVAL on directories.
While fsync(2) is allowed to fail
12 matches
Mail list logo
