On Jun 27, 2007 19:57 +0100, zuogui xie wrote:
To keep compatibility, we begin to use meta block groups after the
reserved block groups run out. superblock and single block group descriptor
block are placed at the beginning of the first, second, and last block
groups in a meta-block group.
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The below patch add ioctl for migrating ext3 indirect block mapped inode
to ext4 extent mapped inode.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/Makefile|2 +-
fs/ext4/ioctl.c |3 +
fs/ext4/migrate.c |
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:58:10 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
N O T E:
---
1) Only Patches 4/7 and 7/7 are NEW. Rest of them are _already_ part
of ext4 patch queue git tree hosted by Ted.
Why the heck are replacements for these things being sent out again when
they're
Valerie Clement a écrit :
Hi,
I re-ran some FFSB tests on ext3, ext4 and xfs filesystems, on a
2.6.22-rc5 kernel and with the latest ext4-git-tree (update of June 26).
The results are available here:
http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/20070627/ffsb-write.html
Regards,
Valérie
An update
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 02:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Please drop the non-ext4 patches from the ext4 tree and send incremental
patches against the (non-ext4) fallocate patches in -mm.
The ext4 fallocate() patches are dependent on the core fallocate()
patches, so ext4 patch-queue and git
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:55:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:58:10 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
N O T E:
---
1) Only Patches 4/7 and 7/7 are NEW. Rest of them are _already_ part
of ext4 patch queue git tree hosted by Ted.
Why the heck
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:04:56AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:59:08AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 12:14:00PM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 17:37 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
I think, modifying ctime/mtime should be
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Can you clarify - what is the current
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:27:57 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please drop the non-ext4 patches from the ext4 tree and send incremental
patches against the (non-ext4) fallocate patches in -mm.
Please let us know what you think of Mingming's suggestion of posting
all the
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 11:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:27:57 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please drop the non-ext4 patches from the ext4 tree and send incremental
patches against the (non-ext4) fallocate patches in -mm.
Please let us know what
Andrew Morton wrote:
b) We do what we normally don't do and reserve the syscall slots in mainline.
If everyone agrees it's going to happen... why not?
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ext4 in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Jun 28, 2007 23:27 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:55:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Are we all supposed to re-review the entire patchset (or at least #4 and
#7) again?
As I mentioned in the note above, only patches #4 and #7 were new and
thus these needed to
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 23:49 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
Correct, but for swap files that's not an issue - no user should be
able
too read them, and FA_MKSWAP would really need root privileges to
execute.
Will the FA_MKSWAP mode still be required with your suggested change
of
teaching
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:49:13PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:18:04AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007 16:02 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:46:26PM -0600,
14 matches
Mail list logo
