Re: very poor ext3 write performance on big filesystems?

On Feb 20 2008 09:44, David Rees wrote: >On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 2:57 AM, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But GNU tar does not handle acls and xattrs. So back to rsync/cp/mv. > >Huh? The version of tar on my Fedora 8 desktop (tar-1.17-7) does. Just >add th

Re: very poor ext3 write performance on big filesystems?

On Feb 18 2008 10:35, Theodore Tso wrote: >On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:57:25PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: >> > Use cp >> > or a tar pipeline to move the files. >> >> Are you sure cp handles hardlinks correctly? I know tar does, >> but I have my doubts about cp. > >I *think* GNU cp does the right thi

Re: BTRFS partition usage...

On Feb 12 2008 15:38, David Miller wrote: > >> I still don't like the idea of btrfs trying to be smarter than a user >> who can partition up his system according to >> (a) his likes >> (b) system or hardware requirements or recommendations >> to align the superblock to a specific locatio

Re: BTRFS partition usage...

On Feb 12 2008 15:26, David Miller wrote: > >> (Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED the >> whitespace at the start of a partition.) > >You actully do unless you want to lose significant chunks of your disk >space. > >The Sun disk label only allows you to specify the start of

Re: BTRFS partition usage...

> On Feb 12 2008 09:35, Chris Mason wrote: >> >> and slap the bootloader into "MBR", just like on x86. >> Or I am missing something.. > >It was a request from hpa, and he clearly had something in mind. He kindly >offered to review the disk format for bootloaders and other lower level >issues but

Re: BTRFS partition usage...

On Feb 12 2008 09:08, Chris Mason wrote: >> > >> >So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you? >> >> Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all? >> Superblock at 0, and done. Just like xfs. >> (Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED th

Re: BTRFS partition usage...

On Feb 12 2008 08:49, Chris Mason wrote: >> > >> > This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels >> > created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk >> > label. It took me a few iterations before I figured out why every >> > btrfs make would zero out my disk

Re: [1/2] POHMELFS - network filesystem with local coherent cache.

On Jan 31 2008 22:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > >POHMELFS stands for Parallel Optimized Host Message Exchange >Layered File System. It allows to mount remote servers to local >directory via network. This filesystem supports local caching >and writeback flushing. >POHMELFS is a brick in a future di

Re: [PATCH] procfs: constify function pointer tables

On Jan 23 2008 18:41, Bryan Wu wrote: >Oh, this patch does not touch all, following is the missing list: >--- [...] >arch/ia64/hp/common/sba_iommu.c:static struct seq_operations ioc_seq_ops = { >arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c:struct seq_operations pfm_seq_ops = { >arch/ia64/kernel/setup.c:struct seq_o

Re: [PATCH] procfs: constify function pointer tables

On Jan 23 2008 12:18, Bryan Wu wrote: >> [PATCH] procfs: constify function pointer tables >> --- >> arch/alpha/kernel/setup.c |2 +- >> arch/blackfin/kernel/setup.c |2 +- >> [...] >> diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/setup.c b/arch/alpha/kernel/setup.c >> index bd5e68c..823f18e 100644

[PATCH] procfs: constify function pointer tables

Hi, This touches so many different places that I did not feel like creating a miniscule patch for each architecture. I hope that is ok. ===Patch begins=== [PATCH] procfs: constify function pointer tables Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/alpha/kernel/s

Re: [RFC][PATCH] VFS: create /proc//mountinfo

On Jan 19 2008 12:05, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >+ >+/* >+ * Write full pathname from the root of the filesystem into the buffer. >+ */ >+char *dentry_path(struct dentry *dentry, char *buf, int buflen) Hm, this functions looks very much like __d_path(). Is it an unintentional copy? >+{ >+ char

Re: [patch] VFS: extend /proc/mounts

On Jan 17 2008 11:33, Neil Brown wrote: >On Thursday January 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> On Jan 17 2008 00:43, Karel Zak wrote: >> >> >> >> Seems like a plain bad idea to me. There will be any number of home-made >> >> /proc/mounts parsers and we don't know what they do. >> > >> > So, le

Re: [patch] VFS: extend /proc/mounts

On Jan 17 2008 00:43, Karel Zak wrote: >> >> Seems like a plain bad idea to me. There will be any number of home-made >> /proc/mounts parsers and we don't know what they do. > > So, let's use /proc/mounts_v2 ;-) Was not it like "don't use /proc for new things"? - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [patch 5/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged bind mounts

On Jan 8 2008 20:08, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:35 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> > +static int reserve_user_mount(void) >> > +{ >> > + int err = 0; >> > + >> > + spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock); >> > + if (nr_user_mounts >= max_user_mounts && !capable(CAP_SYS_A

Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13.1-rc2

On Jan 5 2008 01:31, Andrew Morton wrote: >> The second util-linux-ng 2.13.1 release candidate is available at >> >> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux-ng/ >> > >Interesting. Thanks. Which distros are using this, or plan to do so? SUSE does. Practically, the first util-linux

Re: [PATCH 01/42] Unionfs: filesystems documentation index

On Dec 13 2007 10:06, Erez Zadok wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Engelhardt writes: >> >> On Dec 9 2007 21:41, Erez Zadok wrote: >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >--- >> > Documentation/filesyst

Re: [PATCH 01/42] Unionfs: filesystems documentation index

On Dec 9 2007 21:41, Erez Zadok wrote: > >Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >--- > Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX |2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > This is not CVS, you are allowed to have multiple files in a changeset :-) Perhaps fold 1-7. - To unsubs

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 22:10, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: > >A minor implementation problem with chrooted environment is that the >FUSE VFS server must be run with root privileges to allow setuid >programs on the mounted filesystems. But it's certainly doable. You would not want user-supplied filesystems to c

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 19 2007 05:32, David Newall wrote: > > The claim is wrong. UNIX systems have traditionally allowed the > superuser to create hard links to directories. See link(2) for > 2.10BSD > . > Having got that wrong throws do

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 19:07, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: >> On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: >> >Hello, >> > >> >Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program >> >source >> >code. We want to do this: >> >cat hello.zip^/hello.c >> >gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: >Hello, > >Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program source >code. We want to do this: > cat hello.zip^/hello.c > gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello > etc.. > >The '^' is an escape character and it tells the

Re: [patch 2/2] getattr - fill the size of FIFOs

On Oct 3 2007 10:55, Bodo Eggert wrote: > >> [PATCH]: Fill the size of FIFOs >> >> Instead of reporting 0 in size when stating() a pipe > >FIFO Yes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at htt

Re: [PATCH] isofs: add +w bit for non-RR discs

On Oct 4 2007 20:46, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:00:26PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> Add %S_IWUGO bit for files on ISO-9660 filesystems without RockRidge > >Looks to me like you've added S_IWUSR, not S_IWUGO. Yes, S_IWUSR it should be, and is. When

[PATCH] isofs: add +w bit for non-RR discs

Add %S_IWUGO bit for files on ISO-9660 filesystems without RockRidge extensions. This allows one to modify the files right after copying, without having to do an extra recursive chmod if `cp -p` or `rsync -p` is used. References: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/1/164 Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt

[patch 2/2] getattr - fill the size of FIFOs

[PATCH]: Fill the size of FIFOs Instead of reporting 0 in size when stating() a pipe, we give the number of queued bytes. This might avoid using ioctl(FIONREAD) to get this information. References: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/2/138 Cc: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-b

[patch 1/2] getattr - fill the size of pipes

Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/pipe.c | 49 - 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) Index: linux-2.6.23/fs/pipe.c === --- linux-2.6.23.or

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

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 ra

Re: [PATCH 03/25] Unionfs: display informational messages only if debug is on

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_flag

Re: [PATCH 03/25] Unionfs: display informational messages only if debug is on

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)->

Re: [RFC] Union Mount: Readdir approaches

On Sep 13 2007 14:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Al Boldi: >> It turns out that the problem was this in dentry.c: > ::: >> Commenting the #if block makes it compile now. >> >> Works great too. Even performance wise. Needs more testing though. > >Thank you for your report and forwarding you

Re: [RFC] Union Mount: Readdir approaches

On Sep 12 2007 13:46, Al Boldi wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> But if you really want to read or try it, you can get all source files >> from sourceforge. Read http://aufs.sf.net and try, >> $ cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/aufs login >> (CVS password is empty) >> $ cvs -z3 -d:pserv

Re: [RFC] Union Mount: Readdir approaches

On Sep 7 2007 11:16, Bharata B Rao wrote: >Questions >- >The main problem in getting a sane readdir() implementation in Union Mount >is the fact that a single vfs object (file structure) is used to represent >more than one (underlying) directory. Because of this, it is unclear as to >how l

Re: [PATCH 09/32] Unionfs: cache-coherency - dentries

On Sep 3 2007 10:08, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: >> >+int is_newer_lower(const struct dentry *dentry) >> >> Could use bool and true/false as return value. > >I remember that way back when there was a discussion about the bool type. >What how did that end? Is bool preferred? Well if there were obj

Re: [PATCH 12/32] Unionfs: documentation updates

On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: >+ >+While rebuilding Unionfs's objects, we also purge any page mappings and >+truncate inode pages (see fs/Unionfs/dentry.c:purge_inode_data). This is to fs/unionfs/dentry.c >+Unionfs maintains the following important invariant regarding mtime's,

Re: [PATCH 09/32] Unionfs: cache-coherency - dentries

On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: >@@ -184,10 +183,92 @@ out: > } > > /* >+ * Determine if the lower inode objects have changed from below the unionfs >+ * inode. Return 1 if changed, 0 otherwise. >+ */ >+int is_newer_lower(const struct dentry *dentry) Could use bool and true/false

Re: [PATCH 08/32] Unionfs: cache-coherency - update inode times

On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: >-static ssize_t unionfs_write(struct file * file, const char __user * buf, >+ >+static ssize_t unionfs_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, >size_t count, loff_t *ppos) > { > int err = 0; > > union

Re: [PATCH 05/32] Unionfs: do not use fsstack_copy_attr_all

On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: >+/* copy a/m/ctime from the lower branch with the newest times */ >+static inline void unionfs_copy_attr_times(struct inode *upper) >+{ > >+ /* XXX: should we notify_change on our upper inode? */ I do not think so. Inotifying should onl

Re: [PATCH 03/32] VFS/fsstack: cpp endif comments

On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: >diff --git a/include/linux/fs_stack.h b/include/linux/fs_stack.h >index 6b52faf..28543ad 100644 >--- a/include/linux/fs_stack.h >+++ b/include/linux/fs_stack.h >@@ -39,4 +39,4 @@ static inline void fsstack_copy_attr_times(struct inode >*dest, >

Re: How Linux /proc filesystem convert a fd to the actual pathname?

>In the Linux proc filesystem, /proc/[pid]/fd is a link to the >actually the actual pathname of the opened file. > >I am curious how Linux convert an fd to the pathname? Does it >recursively walk back from current dentry to the root? AFAICS the fd has a pointer to the vma of the file (don't ask

Re: Distributed storage. Mirroring to any number of devices.

On Aug 14 2007 20:29, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > >I'm pleased to announce second release of the distributed storage >subsystem, which allows to form a storage on top of remote and local >nodes, which in turn can be exported to another storage as a node to >form tree-like storages. I'll be quick: w

Re: [1/2] 2.6.23-rc3: known regressions with patches

On Aug 13 2007 19:59, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > >Subject : Kconfig prompts without help text >References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/16/326 >Last known good : ? >Submitter : Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Caused-By : ? >Handled-By

Re: [RFD] Layering: Use-Case Composers (was: DRBD - what is it, anyways? [compare with e.g. NBD + MD raid])

On Aug 12 2007 20:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > per the message below MD (or DM) would need to be modified to work > reasonably well with one of the disk components being over an > unreliable link (like a network link) Does not dm-multipath do something like that? > are the MD/DM maintainers

Re: Finding out socket/pipe connectivity status

On Aug 12 2007 19:42, Alan Cox wrote: >> write(stdout, request); >> /* reference point [A] */ >> read(stdin, response); >> >> So my idea had been to launch another thread that monitors stdin for >> 'breakage' and unmount the fs before a user can start an operation on >> myfs. So I'

Re: [RFD] Layering: Use-Case Composers (was: DRBD - what is it, anyways? [compare with e.g. NBD + MD raid])

On Aug 12 2007 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > now, I am not an expert on either option, but three are a couple things that I > would question about the DRDB+MD option > > 1. when the remote machine is down, how does MD deal with it for reads and > writes? I suppose it kicks the drive and you

Re: Finding out socket/pipe connectivity status

On Aug 12 2007 17:00, Alan Cox wrote: >> when a pipe/socket is broken, the process trying to read/write to it >> gets SIGPIPE. Is there a way to detect whether the next read/write will >> trigger a SIGPIPE? select() does not seem helpful here. >Processes that are network aware normally set SIGP

Finding out socket/pipe connectivity status

Hi, when a pipe/socket is broken, the process trying to read/write to it gets SIGPIPE. Is there a way to detect whether the next read/write will trigger a SIGPIPE? select() does not seem helpful here. My specific case is "ssh server svprogram", in which the ssh process is locally terminated w

Re: [RFD] Layering: Use-Case Composers (was: DRBD - what is it, anyways? [compare with e.g. NBD + MD raid])

On Aug 12 2007 13:35, Al Boldi wrote: >Lars Ellenberg wrote: >> meanwhile, please, anyone interessted, >> the drbd paper for LinuxConf Eu 2007 is finalized. >> http://www.drbd.org/fileadmin/drbd/publications/ >> drbd8.linux-conf.eu.2007.pdf >> >> but it does give a good overview about what DRBD ac

Re: [RFC] FUSE: mnotify (was: [RFC] VFS: mnotify)

On Aug 12 2007 06:32, Al Boldi wrote: >Al Boldi wrote: >> Jakob Oestergaard wrote: >> > Why on earth would you cripple the kernel defaults for ext3 (which is a >> > fine FS for boot/root filesystems), when the *fundamental* problem you >> > really want to solve lie much deeper in the implementatio

Re: problems while mounting /boot partition

On Aug 8 2007 18:28, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > >Hi Brian, > >Brian J. Murrell pisze: >> I am using Ubuntu Gutsy, which is the in-development branch heading for >> their next stable release. > >You forgot about message subject, so no one has read this report. Actually, given the volume on LKML, a

Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS into individual setattr functions (RESEND)

On Aug 8 2007 09:48, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0400 >> > Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Is there any way in which we can prevent these problems? Say >> > >> > - rename something so that unconverted filesystems will reliably fail to >> > compile?

Re: [RFC 12/26] ext2 white-out support

On Aug 1 2007 12:00, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote: > >*) The amount of administration work of any (necessary, unfortunately) >VMware XP instance running on top of those diskless clients excels that of >all diskless clients by an order of magnitude. Hardly :) Install XP, snapshot it when done. Copy .

Re: [RFC 12/26] ext2 white-out support

On Jul 31 2007 12:36, Josef Sipek wrote: >[2] http://www.filesystems.org/unionfs-odf.txt >Instead, the new ODF code stores whiteouts as hardlinks to a special >(regular) zero-length file in odf (/odf/whiteout), and it stores opaqueness >information for directories in the inode GID bits in an ODF

Re: request for patches: showing mount options

[cc trim on purpose, just autofs interest here] On Jul 28 2007 14:45, Ian Kent wrote: > >Oh .. sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention. > >But now might be a good time to propose the removal of autofs and rename >autofs4 to autofs. I would need to provide some way to map autofs4 >module load reque

Re: mount options for selectively disabling parts of CIFS Unix Extensions

On Jul 16 2007 18:11, Steve French wrote: > I would like opinions on how to handle a specific use question ... > > if the user has mounted e.g. \\server1\shareA (e.g. on a Samba > server) using defaults (and thus gotten support for the Unix > Extensions, but then does a second mount trying to dis

Re: *at syscalls for xattrs?

On Jul 15 2007 23:23, Al Viro wrote: >On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 02:13:21PM -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote: >> >> I suspect he was asking for >> >> int getxattrat(int fd, const char *path, const char *name, void *value, >> size_t size, int flags) >> int setxattrat(int fd, const char *pa

*at syscalls for xattrs?

Hi, recently, the family of *at() syscalls and functions (openat, fstatat, etc.) have been added to Linux and Glibc, respectively. In short: I am missing xattr at functions :) BTW, why is fstatat called fstatat and not statat? (Same goes for futimesat.) It does not take a file descriptor for t

Re: [PATCH] isofs: mounting to regular file may succeed

On Jul 14 2007 03:47, Kirill Kuvaldin wrote: > >We then can mount it to a regular file: Wow, this is news to me. Since when is it possible to mount files to files? Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: utimes() with vfat is problematic

On Jul 10 2007 12:18, Pawel Dziepak wrote: > > Single UNIX Specification says crealy that to do utimes on a file user > have to had write permissions or be a file owner. Linux does check for write permission, but _only_ for time=NULL. Hence it would be helpful if someone knows the exact SUS text,

utimes() with vfat is problematic

Hi, vfat does not know about ownership, hence the files are always owned by the vfat mounter (or whatever the uid= option specified). Which brings a problem to userspace programs trying to utime() but which do not run as the same user as the vfat mounter, because: fs/attr.c:53 ret =

Re: [PATCH 22/26] sys_mknodat(): elevate write count for vfs_mknod/create()

On Jul 5 2007 15:43, Dave Hansen wrote: >@@ -1911,13 +1911,27 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mknodat(int dfd, con > error = do_path_lookup(dfd, tmp, LOOKUP_PARENT, &nd); > if (error) > goto out; >+ > dentry = lookup_create(&nd, 0); > error = PTR_ERR(dentry); >+

Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1

On Jul 4 2007 00:11, Karel Zak wrote: >newgrp: > add support for /etc/gshadow > check result from getgrnam() more carefully Hm, gshadow looks like it is really obsolete. (There is no such file anymore in suse releases since a long while. Previously, gshadow was filled with all the gro

Re: paid work: vfat symlinks, attributes and special files

On Jun 19 2007 14:55, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> If you are willing to develop requested changes, let me know >> please, I'll wait till 19th of January for answers and then I'll > ^^^ > >> post a message to the list wh

Re: paid work: vfat symlinks, attributes and special files

On Jun 18 2007 14:34, Tomas M wrote: > > Good morning. I'd like to kindly offer a paid job to someone > interested. I'm willing to pay $500 for it, nevertheless I'm open > to all suggestions. I hope it's OK to post this offer here. > > I'd like to see some features implemented in VFAT filesystem,

Re: Is having binary prefix something looked at in ext4?

On Jun 8 2007 07:57, shirish wrote: > On 6/8/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Jun 8 2007 02:09, shirish wrote: >> > >> > Is Binary prefix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix >> > something that could be incorporated in the

Re: Is having binary prefix something looked at in ext4?

On Jun 8 2007 02:09, shirish wrote: > > Hi all, > Is Binary prefix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix > something that could be incorporated in the next release. This would > make all the files report much more accurate > file sizes than now. What does this have to do with ext4? And

Re: [Patch 05/18] fs/logfs/logfs.h

>On Sunday 03 June 2007, Jörn Engel wrote: >> +/** >> + * struct logfs_device_ops - device access operations >> + * >> + * @read:  read from the device >> + * @write: write to the device >> + * @erase: erase part of the device >> + */ >>

Re: [RFC] obsoleting /etc/mtab

On Jun 1 2007 09:35, Karel Zak wrote: > >> NFS takes a binary option block anyway. However, that's the exception, >> not the rule. > > I'm not sure, but I think that cifs and ncpfs (NetWare) are > exceptions too. And the dying smbfs... Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [RFC 2/5] inode reservation v0.1 (ext4 kernel patch)

On May 25 2007 09:30, WANG Cong wrote: >>> >>>Yes, I found all TABs gone when I received the mail. When I post next >>>version of the patch, I will test to send to me first :-) >>> >>>Thanks for your information. >> >>Blame Gmail. > >I am using gmail too. That's not gmail's fault, Then it is one

Re: [RFC 2/5] inode reservation v0.1 (ext4 kernel patch)

On May 24 2007 22:47, coly wrote: > >Dave, > >Yes, I found all TABs gone when I received the mail. When I post next >version of the patch, I will test to send to me first :-) > >Thanks for your information. Blame Gmail. Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [RFC PATCH] file as directory

On May 22 2007 20:48, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >Why do we want this? > > >That depends on who you ask. My answer is this: > > 'foo.tar.gz/foo/bar' or > 'foo.tar.gz/contents/foo/bar' > >or something similar. Stole reiser4 an idea. These semantics are quite fragile. Until now, c

Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/14] Introduce union stack

On May 19 2007 03:18, Paul Dickson wrote: > >How about getting rid of the gotos: > > while (fs) { > locked = union_trylock(fs->root); > if (locked) { > locked = union_trylock(fs->altroot); > if (locked) { >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/14] In-kernel file copy between union mounted filesystems

On May 22 2007 08:43, Bharata B Rao wrote: >On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:47:31AM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: >> Bharata B Rao wrote: >> >> > >> >Not really. This is called during copyup of a file residing in a lower >> >layer. And that is done only for regular files. >> >> That is broken. > >But it

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 19 2007 02:15, Rob Landley wrote: >> > + >> > +static inline struct logfs_inode *LOGFS_INODE(struct inode *inode) >> > +{ >> > + return container_of(inode, struct logfs_inode, vfs_inode); >> > +} >> >> Do these need to be uppercase? > >I'm trying to keep it clear in my head... > >When do

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 18 2007 09:01, Dongjun Shin wrote: > On 5/18/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hmm.. so operating your camera on batteries should be against the >> warranty, since batteries commonly run empty while storing pictures? > > AFAIK, the camera stops writing to the flash card and

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 17 2007 21:00, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> > > Opinions? >> > >> > Why would we need another btree, when there is lib/rbtree.c? Or does >> > yours do something fundamentally different? >> >> It is not red-black tree, it is b+ tree. > > It might be better to use the prefix "bptree" to help pre

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 16 2007 02:06, Jörn Engel wrote: > >> > +/* memtree.c */ >> > +void btree_init(struct btree_head *head); >> > +void *btree_lookup(struct btree_head *head, long val); >> > +int btree_insert(struct btree_head *head, long val, void *ptr); >> > +int btree_remove(struct btree_head *head, long va

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 16 2007 15:53, Jörn Engel wrote: > >My experience is that no matter which name I pick, people will complain >anyway. Previous suggestions included: [...] > >Plus today: >FFFS >flashfs >fredfs >bob >shizzle > >Imo they all suck. LogFS also sucks, but it allows me to make a stupid >joke and

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 16 2007 22:06, CaT wrote: >On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:50:03PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote: >> On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: >> > >> > But if akpm can't pronounce it, how about FFFS for faster flash >> > filesystem ;-) >> >> How many of you have worked for IBM be

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 16 2007 14:55, Jörn Engel wrote: >On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:29:22 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: >> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:50:03PM +0200, Jörn Engel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: >> > > >> > > But if akpm can't pronounce it, ho

Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On May 16 2007 13:09, Jörn Engel wrote: >On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:54:14 +0800, David Woodhouse wrote: >> >> Personally I'd just go for 'JFFS3'. After all, it has a better claim to >> the name than either of its predecessors :) > >Did you ever see akpm's facial expression when he tried to pronounce

RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB

On May 17 2007 21:11, Neil Brown wrote: >On Thursday May 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> XOR it (0^0=1), and hence fills up the host disk. > >Uhmm... you need to check your maths. > >$ perl -e 'printf "%d\n", 0^0;' >0 > >:-) (ouch) You know just as I that ^ is the power operator! I just... wrongl

RE: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB

On May 17 2007 09:42, Jeff Zheng wrote: > >Problem is that is only happens when you actually write data to the >raid. You need the actual space to reproduce the problem. That should not be a big problem. Create like 4x950G virtual sparse drives (takes roughly or so 4x100 MB on the host after mkfs

Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/14] Union-mount lookup

On May 16 2007 10:38, Bharata B Rao wrote: >> >> >+lookup_union: >> >+ do { >> >+ struct vfsmount *mnt = find_mnt(topmost); >> >+ UM_DEBUG_DCACHE("name=\"%s\", inode=%p, device=%s\n", >> >+ topmost->d_name.name, topmost->d_inode, >> >+

Re: Software raid0 will crash the file-system, when each disk is 5TB

On May 16 2007 11:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm getting ready to setup a similar machine that will have 3x10TB (3 15 disk > arrays with 750G drives), but won't be ready to try this for a few more days. You could emulate it with VMware. Big disks are quite "cheap" when they are not allocate

Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/14] ext2 whiteout support

On May 14 2007 15:14, Bharata B Rao wrote: > >--- a/fs/ext2/dir.c >+++ b/fs/ext2/dir.c >@@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ static unsigned char ext2_filetype_table > [EXT2_FT_FIFO] = DT_FIFO, > [EXT2_FT_SOCK] = DT_SOCK, > [EXT2_FT_SYMLINK] = DT_LNK, >+ [EXT2_FT_WHT]

Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/14] VFS whiteout handling

On May 14 2007 15:13, Bharata B Rao wrote: > >+/* >+ * Dummy default file-operations: >+ * Never open a whiteout. This is always a bug. >+ */ >+static int whiteout_no_open(struct inode *irrelevant, struct file *dontcare) >+{ >+ printk("Attemp to open a whiteout!\n"); >+ WARN_ON(1); >+

Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/14] In-kernel file copy between union mounted filesystems

On May 14 2007 15:13, Bharata B Rao wrote: >+ >+ if (flag & 0x2) { >+ error = union_copyup(nd, flag); >+ if (error) >+ goto exit; >+ } What I dislike (and that also goes for fs/namei.c and such) that they use numeral constants, i.e. 0x2. Th

Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/14] Union-mount lookup

On May 14 2007 15:12, Bharata B Rao wrote: > >+struct dentry * d_lookup_single(struct dentry *parent, struct qstr *name) >+{ >+ struct dentry *dentry; >+ unsigned long seq; >+ >+do { >+seq = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock); >+dentry = __d_lookup_singl

Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/14] Union-mount mounting

On May 14 2007 15:11, Bharata B Rao wrote: > >TODO: bind and move mounts aren't yet supported with union mounts. Are the semantics already set? >@@ -294,6 +294,10 @@ static struct vfsmount *clone_mnt(struct > if (!mnt) > goto alloc_failed; > >+ /* >+ * As of now,

Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/14] Union-mount dentry reference counting

On May 14 2007 15:11, Bharata B Rao wrote: >+void __union_check(struct dentry *dentry) >+{ >+ if (likely(!(dentry->d_topmost || dentry->d_overlaid))) { This could be simplified to if (likely(!dentry->d_topmost && !dentry->d_overlaid)) (I prefer x==NULL over !x for pointers, though) And

Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/14] Introduce union stack

On May 14 2007 13:23, Badari Pulavarty wrote: >> +static inline void union_lock_fs(struct fs_struct *fs) >> +{ >> +int locked; >> + >> +while (fs) { >> +locked = union_trylock(fs->root); >> +if (!locked) >> +goto loop1; >> +locked = u

Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/14] Introduce union stack

On May 14 2007 15:10, Bharata B Rao wrote: >+struct union_info * union_alloc(void) Ultimate nitpick: try s/\* /*/; (also elsewhere) >+static inline void union_lock(struct dentry *dentry) >+{ >+ if (unlikely(dentry && dentry->d_union)) { >+ struct union_info *ui = dentry->d_unio

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/14] Add a new mount flag (MNT_UNION) for union mount

On May 14 2007 15:09, Bharata B Rao wrote: > >Introduce MNT_UNION, MS_UNION and FS_WHT flags. There are the necessary flags >for doing > >mount /dev/hda3 /mnt -o union > >You need additional patches for util-linux for that to work. > >Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Signed-off-b

Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/14] Add the whiteout file type

On May 14 2007 15:09, Bharata B Rao wrote: > >A white-out stops the VFS from further lookups of the white-outs name and >returns -ENOENT. This is the same behaviour as if the filename isn't >found. This can be used in combination with union mounts to virtually >delete (white-out) files by creating

Re: [PATCH 1/2] LogFS proper

On May 8 2007 20:17, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: >> > >> +static int __logfs_readdir(struct file *file, void *buf, filldir_t >> > >> filldir) >> > >> +{ >> > >> + err = read_dir(dir, &dd, pos); >> > >> + if (err == -EOF) >> > >> + break; >> > > >> > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] LogFS proper

On May 8 2007 09:22, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ >> +obj-$(CONFIG_LOGFS) += logfs.o >> + >> +logfs-y += compr.o >> +logfs-y += dir.o >> +logfs-y += file.o >> +logfs-y += gc.o >> +logfs-y += inode.o >> +logfs-y += journal.o >> +logfs-y += memtree.o >> +logfs-y

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

On Apr 26 2007 22:27, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> >> >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly? >> > >> >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned >> > by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount. >> >> Thin

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly? > >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned > by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount. Think nfs. I access some nfs file as an unprivileged user. knfsd, by nat

Re: [patch 7/8] allow unprivileged mounts

On Apr 21 2007 10:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> tmpfs! > >tmpfs is a possible problem because it can consume lots of ram/swap. >Which is why it has limits on the amount of space it can consume. Users can gobble up all RAM and swap already today. (Unless they are confined into an rlimit, whi

  1   2   >