on 26/02/2008 21:23 Pav Lucistnik said the following:
Pav Lucistnik píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 19:16 +0100:
Andriy Gapon píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 16:40 +0200:
Yay, and can you fix the sequential read performance while you're at it?
Kthx!
this was almost trivial :-)
See the attached patch,
Andriy Gapon píše v čt 28. 02. 2008 v 10:33 +0200:
And while I have your attention, I have a related question.
I have produced a bunch of ISO9660 Level 3 / UDF hybrid media with
mkisofs, and when I mount the UDF part of them, the mount point (root
directory of media) have 0x000 permissions. Yes
on 28/02/2008 11:59 Pav Lucistnik said the following:
Andriy Gapon píše v čt 28. 02. 2008 v 10:33 +0200:
And while I have your attention, I have a related question.
I have produced a bunch of ISO9660 Level 3 / UDF hybrid media with
mkisofs, and when I mount the UDF part of them, the mount
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Andriy Gapon píše v čt 28. 02. 2008 v 10:33 +0200:
And while I have your attention, I have a related question.
I have produced a bunch of ISO9660 Level 3 / UDF hybrid media with
mkisofs, and when I mount the UDF part of them, the mount point (root
directory of media) have
Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 26/02/2008 21:23 Pav Lucistnik said the following:
Pav Lucistnik píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 19:16 +0100:
Andriy Gapon píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 16:40 +0200:
Yay, and can you fix the sequential read performance while you're at it?
Kthx!
this was almost trivial :-)
See the
Pav Lucistnik píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 19:16 +0100:
Andriy Gapon píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 16:40 +0200:
Yay, and can you fix the sequential read performance while you're at it?
Kthx!
this was almost trivial :-)
See the attached patch, first hunk is just for consistency.
The code
on 05/02/2008 20:16 Pav Lucistnik said the following:
Andriy Gapon píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 16:40 +0200:
Yay, and can you fix the sequential read performance while you're at it?
Kthx!
this was almost trivial :-)
See the attached patch, first hunk is just for consistency.
The code was
on 05/02/2008 22:43 Scott Long said the following:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
But there is another issue that I also mentioned in the email about
directory reading. It is UDF_INVALID_BMAP case of udf_bmap_internal,
i.e. the case when file data is embedded into a file entry.
This is a special case
on 06/02/2008 18:34 Andriy Gapon said the following:
Actually the patch is not entirely correct. max_size returned from
udf_bmap_internal should be used to calculate number of continuous
sectors for read-ahead (as opposed to file size in the patch).
Attached is an updated patch.
The most
on 04/02/2008 22:07 Pav Lucistnik said the following:
Julian Elischer píše v po 04. 02. 2008 v 10:36 -0800:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file system by submitting
on 04/02/2008 20:36 Julian Elischer said the following:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file system by submitting a competent
and insightful analysis of the
Andriy Gapon píše v út 05. 02. 2008 v 16:40 +0200:
Yay, and can you fix the sequential read performance while you're at it?
Kthx!
this was almost trivial :-)
See the attached patch, first hunk is just for consistency.
The code was borrowed from cd9660, only field/variable names are
Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 04/02/2008 22:07 Pav Lucistnik said the following:
Julian Elischer píše v po 04. 02. 2008 v 10:36 -0800:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file
Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 04/02/2008 22:07 Pav Lucistnik said the following:
Julian Elischer píše v po 04. 02. 2008 v 10:36 -0800:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
First, some sleuthing. I came to believe that the problem is caused by
some larger change in vfs/vm/buf area. It seems that now VMIO is applied
to more vnode types than before. In particular it seems that now vnodes
for devices have
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file system by submitting a competent
and insightful analysis of the problem?
First, some sleuthing. I came to believe that the
Julian Elischer píše v po 04. 02. 2008 v 10:36 -0800:
Andriy Gapon wrote:
More on the problem with reading big directories on UDF.
You do realise that you have now made yourself the official
maintainer of the UDF file system by submitting a competent
and insightful analysis of the problem?
17 matches
Mail list logo
