The alternative (and completely safe) solution is to add another file
to proc. Me no likey.
Since we need saner layout, I would strongly suggest exactly that.
I don't think there's all that much wrong with the current layout,
except the two dummy zeroes at the end. Or, something else
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:36:11AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
I'd suggest doing a new file that would *not* try to imitate /etc/mtab.
Another thing is, how much of propagation information do we want to
be exposed and what do we intend to do with it?
I think the scheme devised by Ram is
On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:55 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Hey, I just found /proc/X/mountstats. How does this fit in to the
big
picture?
It seems to show some counters for NFS mounts, no other filesystem
uses it. Format looks rather less nice, than /proc/X/mounts (why do
we need long english
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
worth the effort.
Most users seem to care deeply about things just work. Here is why
ntfs-3g also took the
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
Hello everyone,
Btrfs v0.10 is now available for download from:
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/
Well, it turns out this release had a few small problems:
* data=ordered deadlock on older kernels (including 2.6.23)
* Compile problems when
On Jan 17, 2008 1:25 PM, Chris mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I've put v0.11 out there. It fixes those two problems and will also
compile on older (2.6.18) enterprise kernels.
v0.11 does not have any disk format changes.
Hi Chris,
First, massive congratulations for bringing this to
On Thursday 17 January 2008, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 1:25 PM, Chris mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I've put v0.11 out there. It fixes those two problems and will also
compile on older (2.6.18) enterprise kernels.
v0.11 does not have any disk format changes.
Hi Chris,
Christoph, thanks for your review. Here is the dfs patch 1/4 I rewrote taking
into account your comments.
Patch still depends on patch 1/3 that is to be fixed yet.
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/cifs/Makefile |2 +-
fs/cifs/cifs_dfs_ref.c | 376
On Tue 2008-01-15 20:36:16, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:24:27 -0500
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad
if the disk is not engineered to save
On Jan 17, 2008 7:29 AM, Szabolcs Szakacsits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly to ZFS, Windows Server 2008 also has self-healing NTFS:
I guess that is enough votes to justify going ahead and trying an
implementation of the reverse mapping ideas I posted. But of course
more votes for this is
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Hi y'all,
This is a request for comments on the rewrite of the e2fsck IO
parallelization patches I sent out a few months ago. The mechanism is
totally different. Previously IO was parallelized by issuing IOs from
multiple
On Jan 17, 2008 5:15 PM, David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Valerie Henson wrote:
Hi y'all,
This is a request for comments on the rewrite of the e2fsck IO
parallelization patches I sent out a few months ago. The mechanism is
totally
Convert XIP to support non-struct page backed memory, using VM_MIXEDMAP
for the user mappings.
This requires the get_xip_page API to be changed to an address based one.
Improve the API layering a little bit too, while we're here.
(The kaddr-pfn conversion may not be quite right for all
13 matches
Mail list logo
