On Sunday 21 October 2007 18:55, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 17:16 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > if (writtenlen) {
> > - if (inode->i_size < (pg->index << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) +
> > start + writtenlen) { - inode->i_size = (pg->index
> >
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 17:16 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> if (writtenlen) {
> - if (inode->i_size < (pg->index << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) + start +
> writtenlen) {
> - inode->i_size = (pg->index << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) +
> start + writtenlen;
> +
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 17:16 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
if (writtenlen) {
- if (inode-i_size (pg-index PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) + start +
writtenlen) {
- inode-i_size = (pg-index PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) +
start + writtenlen;
+ if
On Sunday 21 October 2007 18:55, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 17:16 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
if (writtenlen) {
- if (inode-i_size (pg-index PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) +
start + writtenlen) { - inode-i_size = (pg-index
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:38 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> Nick, the patch worked. All of my unionfs-over-jffs2 tests passed.
Can I have a Signed-off-by: for it please?
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:38 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
Nick, the patch worked. All of my unionfs-over-jffs2 tests passed.
Can I have a Signed-off-by: for it please?
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Piggin writes:
[...]
> Hmm, looks like jffs2_write_end is writing more than we actually ask it
> to, and returns that back.
>
> unsigned aligned_start = start & ~3;
>
> and
>
> if (end == PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) {
> /* When writing
On Friday 19 October 2007 17:03, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 19 October 2007 16:05, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
> > 4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass
> > when unionfs is stacked
On Friday 19 October 2007 16:05, Erez Zadok wrote:
> David,
>
> I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
> 4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass
> when unionfs is stacked on top of jffs2, other than my truncate test --
> whic tries to
David,
I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass when
unionfs is stacked on top of jffs2, other than my truncate test -- whic
tries to truncate files up/down (through the union, which then is
On Friday 19 October 2007 17:03, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Friday 19 October 2007 16:05, Erez Zadok wrote:
David,
I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass
when unionfs is stacked on top of
On Friday 19 October 2007 16:05, Erez Zadok wrote:
David,
I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass
when unionfs is stacked on top of jffs2, other than my truncate test --
whic tries to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Piggin writes:
[...]
Hmm, looks like jffs2_write_end is writing more than we actually ask it
to, and returns that back.
unsigned aligned_start = start ~3;
and
if (end == PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) {
/* When writing out the end
David,
I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass when
unionfs is stacked on top of jffs2, other than my truncate test -- whic
tries to truncate files up/down (through the union, which then is
14 matches
Mail list logo
