Bug#388386: [patch]

2006-10-28 Thread Robbert Kouprie
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

Bug#388386: [patch]

2006-10-05 Thread C.Y.M
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

Bug#388386: [patch]

2006-10-05 Thread Eduard Bloch
#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

Bug#388386: [patch]

2006-10-05 Thread C.Y.M
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

Bug#388386: [patch]

2006-10-05 Thread Eduard Bloch
#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

Bug#388386: [patch]

2006-09-20 Thread C.Y.M
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 @@