On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50:58PM -0400, Jachym Holecek wrote:
> # David Young 2011-10-18:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Jared McNeill wrote:
> > > I played around with driver module autoloading a while back, and it
> > > worked pretty well but the implementation I came up with req
Brian Buhrow wrote:
> Hello. Are you seeing this behavior in NetBSD-5? I've been working
> on porting ufs fixes from David Holland back into 5.x, and I've seen too
> many unlocks taken on a given file, and have been wondering where they
> come from. I'm not sure it's the same bug, but
Hello. Are you seeing this behavior in NetBSD-5? I've been working
on porting ufs fixes from David Holland back into 5.x, and I've seen too
many unlocks taken on a given file, and have been wondering where they
come from. I'm not sure it's the same bug, but your finding sounds
interest
Tamas Toth wrote
I don't know anyithing about LIBSA, so i can't tell you how difficult to
support it from ChewieFS.
It's a collection of code to make NetBSD loader easier. PLS look at
sys/lib/libsa/ directory. There are plenty of FS code. It's important
and promising to add ChewieFS suppor
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 05:14:30PM +, David Holland wrote:
> The new discovery that struct ufs_quota_entry is meant to be
> fs-independent changes the complexion of things quite a bit.
ok, so my poor choice of wording and/or bikeshedding burnout has
caused this thread to run down, except for
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 01:28:18PM -0400, James K. Lowden wrote:
> > - We still need suggstions for better terminology than "quota classes"
> > and "quota types".
>
> Our last words on that subject were on 20 October:
right...
> > > Two pairs that strike me as more mnemonic:
> > >
> >
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:54:57 +0100, Greg Troxel wrote:
What are your plans for moving it into the main tree?
We don't have exact plans just hope that it will be part of the kernel
soon.
Can you explain at greater length what works and what doesn't work, and
the degree to which it is usef
IIUC ChewieFS follows FFS format, so the problem is block device driver.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Tamas Toth wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:06:13 +0100, Toru Nishimura
> wrote:
>
>> There are increasing number of NAND only (NOR less) embeded devices on
>> market. How difficult to have
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 06:08:06PM +, David Laight wrote:
> It is unusual to try to do SMP programming where the cpu's don't
> to cache snooping/coherency,
Well, now it is. It took a long time to persuade the hardware guys
that manual cache coherence isn't workable.
--
David A. Holland
dho
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:06:13 +0100, Toru Nishimura
wrote:
There are increasing number of NAND only (NOR less) embeded devices on
market. How difficult to have chewieFS LIBSA support to allow kernel
image
loading from the filesys on NAND?
Toru Nishimura / ALKYL Technology
I don't know a
Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Please consider the test case below, ran on a PUFFS/perfuse/glusterfs
> mount. A look at the PUFFS operation trace shows that the kernel sends
> ADVLOCK for f0, f1 and m when a lock is requested on m.
Here is where the extra ADVLOCK happen:
sys_exit -> exit1 -> fd_free
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > Please consider the test case below, ran on a PUFFS/perfuse/glusterfs
> > mount. A look at the PUFFS operation trace shows that the kernel sends
> > ADVLOCK for f0, f1 and m when a lock is requested on m.
> >
> > It only happens if f0 and f1 are open read-only. As I u
hi,
> Please consider the test case below, ran on a PUFFS/perfuse/glusterfs
> mount. A look at the PUFFS operation trace shows that the kernel sends
> ADVLOCK for f0, f1 and m when a lock is requested on m.
>
> It only happens if f0 and f1 are open read-only. As I understand, a lock
> requested o
hi,
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:20:37 +0100, Julian Fagir wrote:
>
>> You're declaring it still has some bugs - which are those? Before trying
>> it
>> out (I hope to have an SSD some time), it would be nice to know them. ;-)
>> The issues listed seem rather technical.
>>
>
> There are two known
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:20:37 +0100, Julian Fagir wrote:
You're declaring it still has some bugs - which are those? Before trying
it
out (I hope to have an SSD some time), it would be nice to know them. ;-)
The issues listed seem rather technical.
There are two known bugs:
- If you write ou
Please consider the test case below, ran on a PUFFS/perfuse/glusterfs
mount. A look at the PUFFS operation trace shows that the kernel sends
ADVLOCK for f0, f1 and m when a lock is requested on m.
It only happens if f0 and f1 are open read-only. As I understand, a lock
requested on a file cause al
16 matches
Mail list logo
