My interpretation of the preceeding is that there is agreement that
the functionality currently implemented in __setlease() should be
exported, even though the exported name may not be __setlease(). Is
this correct?
If so, that is just fine with me.
The question that I have now is when do you
Make NFS root work by creating a /root directory to satisfy the mount,
otherwise the path lookup for the mount fails with ENOENT.
Signed-off-by: David Howells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
init/do_mounts.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/do_mounts.c
For the non-unix case (e.g. Windows servers) the mode will be taken
from the default specified on the mount. I am not sure if we also
should add code to also honor umask in that case.
I am not sure how common it is to change umask to different values in
different processes which would access the
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:43:51AM -0400, Robert Rappaport wrote:
My interpretation of the preceeding is that there is agreement that
the functionality currently implemented in __setlease() should be
exported, even though the exported name may not be __setlease(). Is
this correct?
Yes.
If
Steve French wrote:
For the non-unix case (e.g. Windows servers) the mode will be taken
from the default specified on the mount. I am not sure if we also
should add code to also honor umask in that case.
I don't think it would be necessary to add code for the windows case, we
should just rely
David Howells wrote:
Make NFS root work by creating a /root directory to satisfy the mount,
otherwise the path lookup for the mount fails with ENOENT.
Signed-off-by: David Howells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
init/do_mounts.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:40:03 +0100
David Howells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Make NFS root work by creating a /root directory to satisfy the mount,
otherwise the path lookup for the mount fails with ENOENT.
What did we do to make it stop working, and when did we do it??
diff --git
On Jun 8 2007 02:09, shirish wrote:
Hi all,
Is Binary prefix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
something that could be incorporated in the next release. This would
make all the files report much more accurate
file sizes than now.
What does this have to do with ext4? And
On Jun 8 2007 07:57, shirish wrote:
On 6/8/07, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 8 2007 02:09, shirish wrote:
Is Binary prefix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
something that could be incorporated in the next release. This would
make all the files report
