On 01/26/2013 03:18 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there
are some things ("btrfs fi show" comes to mind) which will need root
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
> implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there
> are some things ("btrfs fi show" comes to mind) which will need root and
> I am going to explore doing some
On 1/25/13 9:04 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
> implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that
> there are some things ("btrfs fi show" comes to mind) which will need
> root and I am going to explore doing something
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as implemented
> and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there are some things
> ("btrfs fi show" comes to mind) which will need root and I am going to
> explore d
On 25/01/13 14:43, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:29:44AM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:55 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix,
On 01/25/2013 10:04 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that
there are some things ("btrfs fi show" comes to mind) which will need
root and I am going to explore doing something
On 1/25/13 5:32 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
> could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
> btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
> the result if oftem a number of strange error messages
> which do not indica
OK, I think I have gotten the message that this is a bad idea as
implemented and that it should be dropped as such. I believe that there
are some things ("btrfs fi show" comes to mind) which will need root and
I am going to explore doing something for that case. And it also might
be reasonabl
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> The user does not have to be root, they can be a member of the group "disk"
> to manage this device.
>
> Also some or all of the tools accept not just a block device, but also a
> regular file as their parameter.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to check whet
On 01/25/2013 07:17 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:03:19 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 01/25/2013 06:41 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfi
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:29:44 -0500
Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> After all, I do not need to be root to execute "btrfs --version".
Is that all that comes to mind? I just did
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=fs.img bs=1M count=2048
2048+0 records in
2048+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 3.76772 s,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:29:44AM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 06:55 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
> >Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> >
> >>This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
> >>could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of
On 01/25/2013 06:55 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:03:19 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 06:41 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>>> This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
>>> could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
>>> btr
On 01/25/2013 06:41 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
> could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
> btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
> the result if oftem a number of strange error messages
> wh
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
> could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
> btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
> the result if oftem a number of strange error messages
> whi
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem a number of strange error messages
which do not indicate the real problem. This patch changes
that situati
18 matches
Mail list logo
