Re: [PATCH] isofs: mounting to regular file may succeed

2007-07-15 Thread Kirill Kuvaldin
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 09:16:51PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Jul 14 2007 03:47, Kirill Kuvaldin wrote: We then can mount it to a regular file: Wow, this is news to me. Since when is it possible to mount files to files? It is possible to mount a regular file to another one with

Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

2007-07-15 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:47 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: Peter, do you have any interest in seeing how far we can get at tracking lock_page()? I'm not holding my breath, but any little bit would probably help. I ran headfirst into the fact the unlock_page() need not be called by the same task

Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

2007-07-15 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:47 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: Peter, do you have any interest in seeing how far we can get at tracking lock_page()? I'm not holding my breath, but any little bit would probably help. Would this be a valid report? ( /me goes hunt a x86_64 unwinder patch that will

Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

2007-07-15 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 15:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:47 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: Peter, do you have any interest in seeing how far we can get at tracking lock_page()? I'm not holding my breath, but any little bit would probably help. Would this be a valid

Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

2007-07-15 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 11:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:02:23 +0200 Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:47 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: Peter, do you have any interest in seeing how far we can get at tracking lock_page()? I'm not

*at syscalls for xattrs?

2007-07-15 Thread Jan Engelhardt
Hi, recently, the family of *at() syscalls and functions (openat, fstatat, etc.) have been added to Linux and Glibc, respectively. In short: I am missing xattr at functions :) BTW, why is fstatat called fstatat and not statat? (Same goes for futimesat.) It does not take a file descriptor for

Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

2007-07-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established locking order. yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a lock_page() against a different address_space: the blockdev

Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

2007-07-15 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 12:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established locking order. yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a

Re: *at syscalls for xattrs?

2007-07-15 Thread Al Viro
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:46:27PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: Hi, recently, the family of *at() syscalls and functions (openat, fstatat, etc.) have been added to Linux and Glibc, respectively. In short: I am missing xattr at functions :) No. They are not fscking forks. They are

Re: *at syscalls for xattrs?

2007-07-15 Thread Al Viro
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 02:13:21PM -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote: I suspect he was asking for int getxattrat(int fd, const char *path, const char *name, void *value, size_t size, int flags) int setxattrat(int fd, const char *path, const char *name, void *value,

Re: *at syscalls for xattrs?

2007-07-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Al Viro wrote: BTW, why is fstatat called fstatat and not statat? (Same goes for futimesat.) It does not take a file descriptor for the file argument. Otherwise we'd also need fopenat/funlinkat, etc. Any reasons? Ulrich having an odd taste? Solaris compatibility. Sun having no taste

Re: [PATCH 1/6][TAKE7] manpage for fallocate

2007-07-15 Thread Amit K. Arora
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 10:23:42AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: [CC += [EMAIL PROTECTED] Amit, Hi Michael, Thanks for this page. I will endeavour to review it in the coming days. In the meantime, the better address to CC me on fot man pages stuff is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sure. BTW,

[PATCH] ia64 fallocate system call

2007-07-15 Thread David Chinner
sys_fallocate for ia64. This uses the empty slot originally reserved for move_pages. Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S |2 +- include/asm-ia64/unistd.h |2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Index:

[PATCH] xfs: implement fallocate V2

2007-07-15 Thread David Chinner
Initial implementation of -fallocate for XFS. Version 2: o Make allocation and setting the file size atomic. o Drop deallocate/punch functionality o use mode field appropriately to determine if size needs changing. --- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c | 47

[PATCH] introduce fallocate support into xfs_io

2007-07-15 Thread David Chinner
FYI. Initial support for fallocate-based pre-allocation in xfs_io for testing. This currently only works on ia64 because of the hard coded syscall number and will require autoconf magic to conditionally compile in this support. This allows simple command-line based testing of fallocate based