Chris Mason wrote:
--On 10/27/00 14:33:33 -0700 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The atomic restriction can be enforced in a component separate. I mean,
ACLs have all sorts of restrictions on them, and atomicity is one of a
great many of them, so you have to have a separate
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Craig Ruff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:02:52PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Sorry, but I think the root namespace is a serious misdesign. The root
user shouldn't be treated specially at all. In a system that fully
supports capabilities, it's actually
Hans,
At 18:30 28/10/2000, Hans Reiser wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
You can't possibly have both using the same API since you would then get
name collision on filesystems where both named streams and EAs are
supported. (And I haven't even mentioned EAs and named streams attached to
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 09:10:23AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
Also if EAs were to be implemented as extended files/directories, do you
then suggest to use file/directory operations to work with them? (i.e.
open, read, write, close). - If yes, I would think that this is inferior to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
I'm aware of that problem. That's why I think test-and-set is less
painfull, although it involves more overhead.
OK, I'm convinced.
I would like to research
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:11:44AM +0200, Ragnar Kj?rstad wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:24:19AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
I don't think so. My suggestion would be this: All user EAs are prefixed
with "user." when passed to the kernel. The prefix is not actually stored
on
Dear all,
I'm interested in the synchronization mechanism between
buffer and page cache, e.g. for read/writes/mmap
on an ext2 file system.
Can anybody give me a hint?
I understand how the read and writes get synchronized:
read (generic_file_read) checks the page cache,
if not found it calls
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 10:46:26AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:21:22PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
I'm aware of that problem. That's why I think test-and-set is less
painfull, although it involves more overhead.
OK, I'm convinced.
I
Curtis Anderson wrote:
It all depends on how optional things are, and what differences an unmodified
app sees. IMHO, "none" is the right answer in this case. Part of my believing
that directory-hack stream-style attributes are not good is that I don't know
how to do them without making
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
Hans,
At 18:30 28/10/2000, Hans Reiser wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
You can't possibly have both using the same API since you would then get
name collision on filesystems where both named streams and EAs are
supported. (And I haven't even mentioned
Hans,
Thanks a lot for the clarifications! - I think I understand what you mean
now and agree with you. - A unified namespace is a good thing indeed, so I
see why you wanted to stick to the directories/files tructures.
There is only one problem left:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Hans Reiser wrote:
So what about "tar"?
Stephen has been banging the drum about a unified API for ACL's and I think
good things came out of that discussion.
Building an archive of a file system with ACL's or other EA's and untarring
it on a different file system/system is at present a mess and quite
dangerous.
I
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:11:44AM +0200, Ragnar Kj?rstad wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:24:19AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
I don't think so. My suggestion would be this: All user EAs are prefixed
with "user." when passed
13 matches
Mail list logo
