Jeff Garzik wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
3/ With this patch, only ext2fs can be exported. Naturally when I
submit to Linus, all other filesystems which it makes sense to
export will provide an nfsd_operations structure.
One word: ug.
Why does NFS need to stick its
Alexander Viro wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Stephen asked me some sharp questions about how this would work,
and after I answered them to his satisfaction he asked me if I
would have time to implement this feature. I said yes, and went
on to write an initial
Post your document on the reiserfs mailing list when you finish it, the ReiserFS team
will enjoy
reading it.
Hans
Daniel Phillips wrote:
Alexander Viro wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:19:46PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Erm?
Richard Gooch wrote:
Hi, Al. I'd like to explore an idea Linus suggested a while back. He
suggested using VFS inodes as the data store for devfs, rather than
keeping stuff in devfs entries. So the idea would be that the VFS
maintains the tree structure rather than devfs entries.
This
"Dunlap, Randy" wrote:
The thing to do is one of the things that Linus does
best IMO, which is to lead by example. Show us the
code, or in this case, show us the docs.
I am not sure you heard what I said precisely. I am saying to my programmers
"code not suck", and then saying Viro is
"Roman V. Shaposhnick" wrote:
Hans, I do not want to be unpleasant, but you behave like an second level
manager who can not get to the first level for quite a long time.
Ok, let me put it in different lingo. Viro is a fucking asshole who makes life
miserable for people trying to add
kyung park wrote:
Hello,
My name is Kyung Park, the graduate student who is looking for the paper
about JFS in Linux. I am preparing the term paper about journaled file
system in Linux, so I need the related papers as many as possible. It
will be better if the paper was published in
Alexander Viro wrote:
* Inodes got a new field: i_bdev. Filesystems should not worry
about it - just remember to call init_special_inode() when you are
initializing device/fifo/socket in-core inode (in foo_read_inode() or in
foo_mknod(); all filesystems in the tree are doing it now).
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:32:48 +0300, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
BTW, I thought Hans was talking about places that can't sleep (because of
some not schedule-aware lock) when he said "place that cannot call
Stephen's remarks seem right to me.
Hans
--
Get Linux (http://www.kernel.org) plus ReiserFS
(http://devlinux.org/namesys). If you sell an OS or
internet appliance, buy a port of ReiserFS! If you
need customizations and industrial grade support, we sell them.
"Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" wrote:
I completly agree to change mark_buffer_dirty() to call balance_dirty()
before returning. But if you add the balance_dirty() calls all over the
right places all should be _just_ fine as far I can tell.
I don't agree, both for the reasons above and because
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:18:03 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
refile_buffer() checks in buffer.c. Ideally there should be a
system-wide upper bound on dirty data: if each different
You might find it easier to prototype ACLs on reiserfs.
Hans
Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to bring to your attention the current Linux ACL development
efforts. AFAIK, there are two competing implementations:
ACLs for ext2
I
am sure there is at least one person on this list who pays by the byte
(or minute, which == byte in the end) for his connectivity and really
did not need to see the whole content of a previous message *including*
the entire patch in the reply to make one or two lines of new content
Alan Cox wrote:
Don't however think you can safely
test an fs on a production box just on one partition and be safe. You can
be _safer_ but you should be prepared to cover the worst.
The funny thing is that in all my years of hacking on reiserfs, neither I nor
anyone else on my team has
place in fs/buffer.c
#ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS
#include reiserfs/buffer.c
#endif
If the user doesn't turn reiserfs on, he will take no risk at all. I'll modify our
reiserfs patch to do it that way, it should have been done.
Hans
Alan Cox wrote:
That said, we don't distrurb other folks's
Alan Cox wrote:
It would be a blessing, especially if the journaling Ext2 or Reiserfs
stuff was also folded into 2.4 as well. The lack of a LVM and a JFS have
unfortunately kept any serious Linux use out of our shop for a while
now.
I can see LVM getting into a standard kernel but not
I think that if you use the SuSE kernel you'll get a nicely patched well supported
LVM for which we are developing a reiserfs resizer which SuSE will also support.
(SuSE is a sponsor for ReiserFS.) I expect that LVM will eventually make it into the
kernel, all of the FS developers that I know
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:19:19 +0400, Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I merely hypothesize that the maximum value of required
FLUSHTIME_NON_EXPANDING will usually be less than 1% of memory, and
therefor won't have an impact. It is not like
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I feel we should encourage Linus to allow the following:
* unions in struct buffer_head and struct page containing filesystem specific
fields comparable to the union in struct inode.
No.
In struct buffer_he
20 matches
Mail list logo
