On 30.11.2015 15:16, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:30:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The other large missing piece is the system call implementation. I have
posted a series earlier this year before my parental leave, and it's
currently lacking review from libc folks, and bl
On Monday 30 November 2015 09:16:05 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:30:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The other large missing piece is the system call implementation. I have
> > posted a series earlier this year before my parental leave, and it's
> > currently lacking review
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:30:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The other large missing piece is the system call implementation. I have
> posted a series earlier this year before my parental leave, and it's
> currently lacking review from libc folks, and blocked on me to update
> the series and po
On Saturday 28 November 2015 21:45:55 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 09:10:53PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 November 2015 14:36:46 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > This is the patch I would prefer to use (and in fact which I have
> > > added to the ext4 tree):
> > >
> >
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 09:10:53PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 November 2015 14:36:46 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > This is the patch I would prefer to use (and in fact which I have
> > added to the ext4 tree):
> >
> > There are issues with 32-bit vs 64-bit encoding of times before
> >
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> This is the patch I would prefer to use (and in fact which I have
> added to the ext4 tree):
>
> There are issues with 32-bit vs 64-bit encoding of times before
> January 1, 1970, which are handled with this patch which is not
> handled with what you have in your patch ser
On Tuesday 24 November 2015 14:36:46 Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> This is the patch I would prefer to use (and in fact which I have
> added to the ext4 tree):
>
> There are issues with 32-bit vs 64-bit encoding of times before
> January 1, 1970, which are handled with this patch which is not
> handled w
This is the patch I would prefer to use (and in fact which I have
added to the ext4 tree):
There are issues with 32-bit vs 64-bit encoding of times before
January 1, 1970, which are handled with this patch which is not
handled with what you have in your patch series. So I'd prefer if you
drop thi
On Nov 20, 2015, at 7:54 AM, David Howells wrote:
>
> The handling of extended timestamps in Ext4 is broken as can be seen in the
> output of the test program attached below:
>
> time extra bad decodegood decode bad encode good encode
> = = =
The handling of extended timestamps in Ext4 is broken as can be seen in the
output of the test program attached below:
time extra bad decodegood decode bad encode good encode
= = = === ===
0 > fff
10 matches
Mail list logo
