On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:09:44PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
Fixes bugs in number promotion/demotion computation, as per
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/20/17
It's better to use te page_offset helper as that avoids any confusion
on where to cast.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sep 25 2007 23:09, Erez Zadok wrote:
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
@@ -394,8 +394,8 @@ int unionfs_file_revalidate(struct file *file, bool
willwrite)
if (willwrite IS_WRITE_FLAG(file-f_flags)
!IS_WRITE_FLAG(unionfs_lower_file(file)-f_flags)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kok, Auke writes:
Erez Zadok wrote:
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102
+-
1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:09:44PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
Fixes bugs in number promotion/demotion computation, as per
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/20/17
It's better to use te page_offset helper as that avoids any confusion
on where
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Engelhardt writes:
On Sep 25 2007 23:09, Erez Zadok wrote:
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
@@ -394,8 +394,8 @@ int unionfs_file_revalidate(struct file *file, bool
willwrite)
if (willwrite IS_WRITE_FLAG(file-f_flags)
On Sep 26 2007 10:01, Erez Zadok wrote:
On Sep 25 2007 23:09, Erez Zadok wrote:
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
@@ -394,8 +394,8 @@ int unionfs_file_revalidate(struct file *file, bool
willwrite)
if (willwrite IS_WRITE_FLAG(file-f_flags)
On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kok, Auke writes:
I've been told several times that adding these is almost always
bogus - either it messes up the CPU branch prediction or the
compiler/CPU just does a lot better at finding the right way
without
On Sep 25, 2007 23:40 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
kernel learner wrote:
ext3 filesystem has 32-bit block address and ext4 filesystem has
48-bit block address. If a user installs ext4, how will the file
system handle already existing block with 32 bit values?
Why should it ? thats what ext3
On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote:
*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated
probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and
;-)
19:1 = 95:5 = 95% = ratio=0.95 != 20.0 (=20/1)
you're telling me I should use 99% (100/1 ratio).
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Engelhardt writes:
On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote:
*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated
probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and
;-)
19:1 = 95:5 = 95% = ratio=0.95 != 20.0
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 16:30 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Attached the fixes necessary to support 64k pagesize/blocksize. I think these
are useful
independent of the large blocksize patchset since there are architectures
that support
64k page size and that could use these large buffer
The below patch is a proof of concept that e2fsck can get a
performance improvement on file systems with more than one disk
underneath. On my test case, a 500GB file system with 150GB in use
and 10+1 RAID underneath, elapsed time is reduced by 40-50%. I see no
performance improvement in the
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
...
Also, Auke, if indeed compilers are [sic] likely to do better than
programmers adding un/likely wrappers, then why do we still support that in
the kernel? (Working for a company tat produces high-quality compilers, you
may know
Erez Zadok wrote:
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ int check_empty(struct dentry *dentry, struct
unionfs_dir_state **namelist)
BUG_ON(!S_ISDIR(dentry-d_inode-i_mode));
- if ((err = unionfs_partial_lookup(dentry)))
+ if (unlikely((err = unionfs_partial_lookup(dentry
Erez Zadok wrote:
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/debug.c | 108 +++
1 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/debug.c b/fs/unionfs/debug.c
index 9546a41..09b52ce 100644
---
On 9/26/07, Andreas Dilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007 23:40 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
kernel learner wrote:
ext3 filesystem has 32-bit block address and ext4 filesystem has
48-bit block address. If a user installs ext4, how will the file
system handle already existing block
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:29:19PM -0500, Sachin Gaikwad wrote:
Is it not the case that VFS takes care of all filesystems available ?
VFS will see if a particular file belongs to ext3 or ext4 and call
that FS's drivers to access information ??
No, it doesn't quite work that way. You have to
Hello,
igrab return NULL on error.
Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -ur linux-2.6.23-rc8/fs/anon_inodes.c linux/fs/anon_inodes.c
--- linux-2.6.23-rc8/fs/anon_inodes.c 2007-09-27 10:05:07.0 +0800
+++ linux/fs/anon_inodes.c 2007-09-27 10:18:26.0 +0800
@@
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:30:50 +0800 Yan Zheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
igrab return NULL on error.
Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -ur linux-2.6.23-rc8/fs/anon_inodes.c linux/fs/anon_inodes.c
--- linux-2.6.23-rc8/fs/anon_inodes.c 2007-09-27 10:05:07.0
19 matches
Mail list logo
