Compile out splice support from ntfs when the splice-family of syscalls is not
supported by the system (i.e. CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE is undefined).
Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith
---
fs/ntfs/file.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ntfs/file.c b/fs/ntfs/file.c
Compile out splice support from ntfs when the splice-family of syscalls is not
supported by the system (i.e. CONFIG_SYSCALL_SPLICE is undefined).
Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith pie...@boesman.nl
---
fs/ntfs/file.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ntfs/file.c
NTFS: Support more clean journal ($LogFile) states.
- Support journals ($LogFile) which have been modified by chkdsk. This
means users can boot into Windows after we marked the volume dirty.
The Windows boot will run chkdsk and then reboot. The user can
NTFS: Support more clean journal ($LogFile) states.
- Support journals ($LogFile) which have been modified by chkdsk. This
means users can boot into Windows after we marked the volume dirty.
The Windows boot will run chkdsk and then reboot. The user can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> So you are constructing a improved NTFS file driver. So
> when you have to check your written codes of file driver, will u
> recompile the whole kernel ? . That is what I am asking. I am in a way
> to build a new file system.
In general, it is not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So you are constructing a improved NTFS file driver. So
when you have to check your written codes of file driver, will u
recompile the whole kernel ? . That is what I am asking. I am in a way
to build a new file system.
In general, it is not necessary
Hi,
At 05:40 25/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
>So you are constructing a improved NTFS file driver. So when you have to
>check your written codes of file driver, will u recompile the whole kernel
>? . That is what I am asking. I am in a way to build a new file system.
>I took NTFS as a sample
Hi,
At 05:40 25/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
So you are constructing a improved NTFS file driver. So when you have to
check your written codes of file driver, will u recompile the whole kernel
? . That is what I am asking. I am in a way to build a new file system.
I took NTFS as a sample one.
try to compile and make
it run.
Thanks in advance
by
Blesson Paul
Anton Altaparmakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 09:20 24/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
> I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
>it do
At 12:01 24/05/01, David Woodhouse wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > > I want to know , is there any method to register ntfs file system
> > > without recompiling the whole kernel
>
> > No, it is not possible to not recompile the kernel if NTFS was {not}
> > configured.
>
>Is it not possible to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > I want to know , is there any method to register ntfs file system
> > without recompiling the whole kernel
> No, it is not possible to not recompile the kernel if NTFS was {not}
> configured.
Is it not possible to build NTFS as a module?
--
dwmw2
-
To
At 09:20 24/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
> I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
>it do not have). I know to do it by changing the configuration and
>recompiling the whole kernel. I want to know , is there any method to
>register ntfs file sy
At 09:20 24/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
> I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
>it do not have). I know to do it by changing the configuration and
>recompiling the whole kernel. I want to know , is there any method to
>register ntfs file sy
Hi
I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
it do not have). I know to do it by changing the configuration and
recompiling the whole kernel. I want to know , is there any method to
register ntfs file system without recompiling the whole kernel
Thanks
Hi
I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
it do not have). I know to do it by changing the configuration and
recompiling the whole kernel. I want to know , is there any method to
register ntfs file system without recompiling the whole kernel
Thanks
At 09:20 24/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
it do not have). I know to do it by changing the configuration and
recompiling the whole kernel. I want to know , is there any method to
register ntfs file system without
At 09:20 24/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
it do not have). I know to do it by changing the configuration and
recompiling the whole kernel. I want to know , is there any method to
register ntfs file system without
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I want to know , is there any method to register ntfs file system
without recompiling the whole kernel
No, it is not possible to not recompile the kernel if NTFS was {not}
configured.
Is it not possible to build NTFS as a module?
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe
At 12:01 24/05/01, David Woodhouse wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I want to know , is there any method to register ntfs file system
without recompiling the whole kernel
No, it is not possible to not recompile the kernel if NTFS was {not}
configured.
Is it not possible to build NTFS as
try to compile and make
it run.
Thanks in advance
by
Blesson Paul
Anton Altaparmakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:20 24/05/2001, Blesson Paul wrote:
I have redhat6.2. I have to add ntfs support to it(defaultly
it do not have). I know
Hi srikanth and all
I really want to help u. I think u are also in the way of
constructing a new file system. If so we can work together. I tried to
compile the files in the fs/ntfs directory. But it shows the errors. The
errors is because each file includes many files in the
Hi srikanth and all
I really want to help u. I think u are also in the way of
constructing a new file system. If so we can work together. I tried to
compile the files in the fs/ntfs directory. But it shows the errors. The
errors is because each file includes many files in the
Recompile new kernel (2.4.4 +) but write support for NTFS 5.0 is still down.
- Original Message -
From: "Blesson Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:55 AM
Subject: no ntfs support
> Hi all
> T
Hi all
Thanks for the reply David. I have done the full
installation of redhat6.2. But there is no support for mounting for ntfs file
system. When ever we write mount -t ntfs /dev. it shows "ntfs not
supported by kernel". But when I went through the kernel source codes,
Hi all
Thanks for the reply David. I have done the full
installation of redhat6.2. But there is no support for mounting for ntfs file
system. When ever we write mount -t ntfs /dev. it shows ntfs not
supported by kernel. But when I went through the kernel source codes,
Hi srikanth and all
I really want to help u. I think u are also in the way of
constructing a new file system. If so we can work together. I tried to
compile the files in the fs/ntfs directory. But it shows the errors. The
errors is because each file includes many files in the
Hi srikanth and all
I really want to help u. I think u are also in the way of
constructing a new file system. If so we can work together. I tried to
compile the files in the fs/ntfs directory. But it shows the errors. The
errors is because each file includes many files in the
Hi!
> Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
> still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration. This is important to me
> because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office laptop
> is going to be "upgraded" from Windows 98 to 2000.
Hi!
Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
still marked Dangerous in the kernel configuration. This is important to me
because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office laptop
is going to be upgraded from Windows 98 to 2000. Of
> Thanks to all who offered suggestions, both on the list and privately.
Rather
> than answer them all individually, I'm going to respond in this one
message.
>
> Unfortunately the upgrade is not going to be done by me, but by our PC
support
> team. Our laptops originally were set up with two
I have installed a Win2000 and you do not have to switch to NTFS. W2000
can be installed on a FAT32 partition. I have installed it on a FAT32
partition and hasn't caused me any problems.
You might wanna give it a try.
good luck,
/me
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Where
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So how risky is this?
Risky enough. I had to chkdsk once for half an hour after copying on an
NTFS 5. Of course, I'm not familiar with the internals of it.
>
> Also, I'll have to recreate my Linux partitions after the upgrade. Does anyone
>
At 03:07 21/04/2001, Lee Leahu wrote:
>On Friday 20 April 2001 20:39, you wrote:
> > Lee Leahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>my boss rememebres reading a very indepth article in one of the msdn
>magazines. i could scan the articles in and compress them and send them
>to the developers.
Since
At 03:07 21/04/2001, Lee Leahu wrote:
On Friday 20 April 2001 20:39, you wrote:
Lee Leahu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
my boss rememebres reading a very indepth article in one of the msdn
magazines. i could scan the articles in and compress them and send them
to the developers.
Since you can
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how risky is this?
Risky enough. I had to chkdsk once for half an hour after copying on an
NTFS 5. Of course, I'm not familiar with the internals of it.
Also, I'll have to recreate my Linux partitions after the upgrade. Does anyone
know if
I have installed a Win2000 and you do not have to switch to NTFS. W2000
can be installed on a FAT32 partition. I have installed it on a FAT32
partition and hasn't caused me any problems.
You might wanna give it a try.
good luck,
/me
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where
Thanks to all who offered suggestions, both on the list and privately.
Rather
than answer them all individually, I'm going to respond in this one
message.
Unfortunately the upgrade is not going to be done by me, but by our PC
support
team. Our laptops originally were set up with two FAT32
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
>still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration. This is important to me
>because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office laptop
>is going to be "upgraded" from
Lee Leahu wrote:
>
> On Friday 20 April 2001 20:39, you wrote:
> > Lee Leahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
> > > the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
> > > developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem
On Friday 20 April 2001 20:39, you wrote:
> Lee Leahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
> > the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
> > developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
>
> It's dangerous because
Lee Leahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
> the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
> developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
It's dangerous because NTFS is a proprietary format, and the full
rules
From: "Lee Leahu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
> the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
> developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
My understanding of the situation is that writing to an NTFS volume is
would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Open Source + Linux = Freedom
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
> still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration. This is important to
> me because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office
> laptop is going to be "upgraded" from Windows 98 to 2000. Of
At 23:33 20/04/2001, Thomas Dodd wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Also, I'll have to recreate my Linux partitions after the
> upgrade. Does anyone
>
>Oll you should need is a boot floppy to get back into linux and fix
>the MBR (rerun lilo?) after the Windows install.
Rerunning lilo is
At 23:08 20/04/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that
>it's still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration.
It is extremely dangerous. Never use unless you are desperate. It creates
corrupt files and especially directories.
Thanks to all who offered suggestions, both on the list and privately. Rather
than answer them all individually, I'm going to respond in this one message.
Unfortunately the upgrade is not going to be done by me, but by our PC support
team. Our laptops originally were set up with two FAT32
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> partition. The upgrade, though, will involve wiping the hard drive, allocating
> the whole drive to a single NTFS partition, and reinstalling Notes after
> installing Windows 2000 . That means bye-bye FAT32 partition and hello NTFS. I
> can't mount it read-only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment?
>
I'll let someone who knows about that answer that part ;)
> Also, I'll have to recreate my Linux partitions after the upgrade. Does anyone
> know if FIPS can split a partition safely that was created
Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration. This is important to me
because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office laptop
is going to be "upgraded" from Windows 98 to 2000. Of
Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration. This is important to me
because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office laptop
is going to be "upgraded" from Windows 98 to 2000. Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment?
I'll let someone who knows about that answer that part ;)
Also, I'll have to recreate my Linux partitions after the upgrade. Does anyone
know if FIPS can split a partition safely that was created under
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
partition. The upgrade, though, will involve wiping the hard drive, allocating
the whole drive to a single NTFS partition, and reinstalling Notes after
installing Windows 2000 . That means bye-bye FAT32 partition and hello NTFS. I
can't mount it read-only because
Thanks to all who offered suggestions, both on the list and privately. Rather
than answer them all individually, I'm going to respond in this one message.
Unfortunately the upgrade is not going to be done by me, but by our PC support
team. Our laptops originally were set up with two FAT32
At 23:08 20/04/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that
it's still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration.
It is extremely dangerous. Never use unless you are desperate. It creates
corrupt files and especially directories. It
At 23:33 20/04/2001, Thomas Dodd wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I'll have to recreate my Linux partitions after the
upgrade. Does anyone
Oll you should need is a boot floppy to get back into linux and fix
the MBR (rerun lilo?) after the Windows install.
Rerunning lilo is correct
Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration. This is important to
me because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office
laptop is going to be "upgraded" from Windows 98 to 2000. Of
would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Open Source + Linux = Freedom
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
From: "Lee Leahu" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
My understanding of the situation is that writing to an NTFS volume is not
Lee Leahu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
It's dangerous because NTFS is a proprietary format, and the full
rules for
On Friday 20 April 2001 20:39, you wrote:
Lee Leahu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
It's dangerous because NTFS is a
Lee Leahu wrote:
On Friday 20 April 2001 20:39, you wrote:
Lee Leahu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would somebody be kind enough to explain why writing to
the ntfs file system is extremely dangerous, and what are the
developers doing to make writing to ntfs filesystem safe?
It's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where does write support for NTFS stand at the moment? I noticed that it's
still marked "Dangerous" in the kernel configuration. This is important to me
because it looks like I'll have to start using it next week. My office laptop
is going to be "upgraded" from
63 matches
Mail list logo
