Hello.
I think bind mounts were discussed when shared subtree
( http://lwn.net/Articles/159092/ ) was introduced.
For systems that allow users mount their CD/DVDs freely,
bind mounts are used and labeling files is a convenient way
to deny accessing somebody else's files.
But systems that don't
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 02:06 +0800, coly wrote:
The patch is generated based on 2.6.20-ext4-2 branch. you can find the
benchmark from other email.
DO NOT waste time on reading the patch :-) I post this patch here is to
show that I really spent time on it and the patch can work (even not
Dave,
Yes, I found all TABs gone when I received the mail. When I post next
version of the patch, I will test to send to me first :-)
Thanks for your information.
Coly
在 2007-05-24四的 08:20 -0500，Dave Kleikamp写道：
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 02:06 +0800, coly wrote:
The patch is generated based on
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking |5 +++--
Documentation/filesystems/porting |8
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:10:00PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Read it like this: we don't have a good idea how to support multiple
namespaces so far. Currently, we interpret all pathnames relative to the
namespace a process is in. Confined processes don't have the privilege to
--- Andreas Gruenbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
where the objects referenced by the paths are identical and visible to the
subject along both paths, in keeping with your description of policy may
allow access to some locations but not to others ?
I'm not aware of situations where
On May 24, 2007 02:08 +0800, coly wrote:
Due to the bad design of magic inode and the on-disk layout of magic
inode. When 30 files created alternatively in each directory, no
performance advantage exists. When 50 files created alternatively in
each directory, the patched ext4 will use double
On Thursday 24 May 2007 20:40, Al Viro wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:10:00PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Read it like this: we don't have a good idea how to support multiple
namespaces so far. Currently, we interpret all pathnames relative to the
namespace a process is in.
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:26:26PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On May 24 2007 22:47, coly wrote:
Dave,
Yes, I found all TABs gone when I received the mail. When I post next
version of the patch, I will test to send to me first :-)
Thanks for your information.
Blame Gmail.
Jan
I am
On Thursday 24 May 2007 20:58, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On Fedora zcat, gzip and gunzip are all links to the same file.
I can imagine (although it is a bit of a stretch) allowing a set
of users access to gunzip but not gzip (or the other way around).
There are probably more sophisticated
Casey Schaufler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fedora zcat, gzip and gunzip are all links to the same file.
I can imagine (although it is a bit of a stretch) allowing a set
of users access to gunzip but not gzip (or the other way around).
There are probably more sophisticated programs that have
On May 25 2007 09:30, WANG Cong wrote:
Yes, I found all TABs gone when I received the mail. When I post next
version of the patch, I will test to send to me first :-)
Thanks for your information.
Blame Gmail.
I am using gmail too. That's not gmail's fault,
Then it is one of these:
- gmail's
12 matches
Mail list logo
