On 2010-07-22 at 21:21 -0400 Ted Ts'o sent off:
Well, not POSIX, because POSIX doesn't have CreationTime at all.
BSD's birthtime doesn't allow it to be set, and the question here is
largely philosophical.
actually, it can (partly :). But the way it can be done is an insane hack:
quote
Hello, Stephen.
On 07/23/2010 06:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Tejun,
Today's linux-next merge of the workqueues tree got a conflict in
fs/cifs/cifsfs.c between commit 4c0c03ca54f72fdd5912516ad0a23ec5cf01bda7
(CIFS: Fix a malicious redirect problem in the DNS lookup code) from
Linus'
Hi Tejun,
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:28:21 +0200 Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Yes, one failure case is removed, so that would be correct.
Thanks for the confirmation. This should probably be fixed in the
workqueues tree before it is merged upstream.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hello,
On 07/23/2010 01:31 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Yes, one failure case is removed, so that would be correct.
Thanks for the confirmation. This should probably be fixed in the
workqueues tree before it is merged upstream.
I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing
Hi Tejun,
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to
resolve the conflict. Would pulling in master before requesting pull
be better?
Either would work. Linus is fine with doing merge fixups and,
Hello,
On 07/23/2010 01:42 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to
resolve the conflict. Would pulling in master before requesting pull
be better?
Either would
Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
Today's linux-next merge of the workqueues tree got a conflict in
fs/cifs/cifsfs.c between commit 4c0c03ca54f72fdd5912516ad0a23ec5cf01bda7
(CIFS: Fix a malicious redirect problem in the DNS lookup code) from
Linus' tree and commit
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Suresh Jayaraman sjayara...@suse.de wrote:
On 07/22/2010 11:10 PM, David Howells wrote:
Suresh Jayaraman sjayara...@suse.de wrote:
As it can been seen, the performance while reading when data is cache
hot (disk) is not great as the network link is a Gigabit
Here's an updated patch that:
(1) Fixes a bug in error handling (needs to use path_put_conditional not
path_put).
(2) Absorbs autofs4's decisions about whether to automount or not. This
means that colour-ls won't cause automounts unless -L is supplied or it
doesn't get a
This is an update required because the first patch in the series was also
altered in the same area.
David
---
From: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH] Add an AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag to suppress terminal automount
Add an AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT flag to suppress terminal automounting of
On 07/23/2010 07:22 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
I built a kernel based on Steve's tree, enabled the fscache option and
got the following panic at umount. I didn't mount with -o fsc or
anything. I have some other patches on top of Steve's tree, but I'm
fairly certain they wouldn't affect this.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:56:05 +0530
Suresh Jayaraman sjayara...@suse.de wrote:
On 07/23/2010 07:22 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
I built a kernel based on Steve's tree, enabled the fscache option and
got the following panic at umount. I didn't mount with -o fsc or
anything. I have some other
On 07/23/2010 02:05 PM, Stef Bon wrote:
In my opinion there should be article published about this, describing
fs-cache generally, and these kinds of benchmarks!
FS-Cache is nicely documented on
Documentation/filesystems/caching/fscache.txt present in the kernel
source. IIRC, LWN -
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:24:46 -0500
Steve French smfre...@gmail.com wrote:
I merged the first 5 of this series, but wanted to understand what
behavior this changes first (it is probably ok). With current
userspace code - what changes would a user see with this?
Hi Steve,
Haven't heard from
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 07:18:19 -0400
Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:19:36 -0400
Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:24:46 -0500
Steve French smfre...@gmail.com wrote:
I merged the first 5 of this series, but wanted to understand
15 matches
Mail list logo
