Hi Eduard,
I am a LUFS user too, so a few comments on this.
Eduard Bloch wrote:
Stupid question: why do you need LUFS? I consider requesting its
removal
because almost everything has moved to FUSE or can be used with
lufis,
the fuse/lufs bridge.
There is no lufis Debian package :(
Does
C.Y.M wrote:
This is a quick hack that solves the build problem with kernel 2.6.18. This
is
not a backwards compatible patch.
Apparently, The 2.6.18 stats callback parameters have changed from 2.6.17 so
that it takes a struct dentry* rather than a struct super_block.
Revised patch applied
#include hallo.h
* C.Y.M [Wed, Sep 20 2006, 07:33:55PM]:
This is a quick hack that solves the build problem with kernel 2.6.18. This
is
not a backwards compatible patch.
Stupid question: why do you need LUFS? I consider requesting its removal
because almost everything has moved to FUSE or
Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* C.Y.M [Wed, Sep 20 2006, 07:33:55PM]:
This is a quick hack that solves the build problem with kernel 2.6.18. This
is
not a backwards compatible patch.
Stupid question: why do you need LUFS? I consider requesting its removal
because almost
#include hallo.h
* C.Y.M [Thu, Oct 05 2006, 06:38:55AM]:
Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* C.Y.M [Wed, Sep 20 2006, 07:33:55PM]:
This is a quick hack that solves the build problem with kernel 2.6.18.
This is
not a backwards compatible patch.
Stupid question: why do you need
This is a quick hack that solves the build problem with kernel 2.6.18. This is
not a backwards compatible patch.
Thanks.
--- lufs/kernel/Linux/2.6/inode.c.orig 2006-09-20 18:31:59.0 -0700
+++ lufs/kernel/Linux/2.6/inode.c 2006-09-20 18:33:02.0 -0700
@@ -510,9 +510,9 @@
6 matches
Mail list logo