On Apr 05, 2007 16:56 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
This should work on all the platforms. The only concern I can think of
here is the convention being followed till now, where all the entities on
which the action has to be performed by the kernel (say fd, file/device
name, pid etc.) is the
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:51PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
Remove some unnecessary parentheses.
Looks good.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
Factor out a bit of messy code by creating posix-to-flock counterparts
to the existing flock-to-posix helper functions.
Ok.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:53PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index f52cf5c..d557a51 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -3019,6 +3019,8 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_getlk(struct nfs4_state *state,
int cmd, struct
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:54PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: Marc Eshel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
posix_test_lock() and -lock() do the same job but have gratuitously
different interfaces. Modify posix_test_lock() so the two agree,
simplifying some code in the process.
Ok.
-
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:55PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
Factor out the code that switches between generic and filesystem-specific lock
methods; eventually we want to call this from lock managers (lockd and nfsd)
too; currently they
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:56PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: Marc Eshel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
Factor out the code that switches between generic and filesystem-specific lock
methods; eventually we want to call this from lock managers (lockd and nfsd)
too; currently they only
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:57PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: Marc Eshel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
The nfsv4 protocol's lock operation, in the case of a conflict, returns
information about the conflicting lock.
It's unclear how clients can use this, so for now we're not going
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:30:12 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset adds support for keeping mount ownership information in
the kernel, and allow unprivileged mount(2) and umount(2) in certain
cases.
No replies, huh?
My knowledge of the code which you're touching is not
On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
- users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in
/etc/fstab
This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security implication of
allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood.
$ whoami
miklos
$ mount
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
- users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in
/etc/fstab
This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security implication of
allowing anyone to do bind mounts are poorly understood.
$ whoami
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:21:19 -0400, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Do you really have to repeat the results in every email you sent?
The following benchmarks are from
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm or,
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
On 4/6/07, H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 6 2007 16:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
- users can use bind mounts without having to pre-configure them in
/etc/fstab
This is by far the biggest concern I see. I think the security implication
of
allowing anyone
Since you decide to publically respond to a private email, but not only
you did not 'discuss' anything I wrote and in fact cut out most of the
useful information in my reply I guess I will have to repeat my
observations.
Once I send out this email, I'll just add you to my friendly killfile
(as
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:30:49 -0400, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Since you decide to publically respond to a private email, but not only
you did not 'discuss' anything I wrote and in fact cut out most of the
useful information in my reply I guess I will have to repeat my
observations.
15 matches
Mail list logo