Hi Al,
Ping and sorry to bother you.
Could you please have a look at my question? Thank you!
Regards,
Boqun Feng
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 01:27:24PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:45:59AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Monday, March 09, 2015 04:24:32 PM Boqun Feng wrote:
>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 09:45:59AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Monday, March 09, 2015 04:24:32 PM Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Ping.
> > Any opinion?
>
> You might want to look at some of the recent changes to Al's vfs.git#for-next
> branch; at the very least it looks like your patch should be rebased
On Monday, March 09, 2015 04:24:32 PM Boqun Feng wrote:
> Ping.
> Any opinion?
You might want to look at some of the recent changes to Al's vfs.git#for-next
branch; at the very least it looks like your patch should be rebased against
those changes.
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Boqun Feng
Ping.
Any opinion?
Thanks,
Boqun Feng
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> In the current implementation of getname_flags, filename in the
> user-space will be recopied if it takes more space that
> EMBEDDED_NAME_MAX, however, at this moment, EMBEDDED_NAME_MAX bytes of
> the file
In the current implementation of getname_flags, filename in the
user-space will be recopied if it takes more space that
EMBEDDED_NAME_MAX, however, at this moment, EMBEDDED_NAME_MAX bytes of
the filename are already copied into kernel space, the only reason why
the recopy is needed is that "kname"
5 matches
Mail list logo