utimes() with vfat is problematic

2007-07-10 Thread Jan Engelhardt
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: utimes() with vfat is problematic

2007-07-10 Thread Pawel Dziepak
2007/7/10, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am not sure how this could be dealt with besides passing -o quiet to mount.vfat. Any ideas? The problem is in the function utimes. I have mounted vfat partition as a root, then changed permissions to 777 for all files. However, I wasn't be able to

Re: utimes() with vfat is problematic

2007-07-10 Thread Jan Engelhardt
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,

Re: utimes() with vfat is problematic

2007-07-10 Thread Pawel Dziepak
On 7/10/07, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux does check for write permission, but _only_ for time=NULL. Hence it would be helpful if someone knows the exact SUS text, or whether this is not explicitly specified in SUS, leaving room for interpretation. I have already checked it

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-07-10 Thread Ric Wheeler
Tejun Heo wrote: [ cc'ing Ric Wheeler for storage array thingie. Hi, whole thread is at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.device-mapper.devel/3344 ] I am actually on the list, just really, really far behind in the thread ;-) Hello, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but when you

[PATCH 0/7][TAKE6] fallocate system call

2007-07-10 Thread Amit K. Arora
This is the latest fallocate patchset and is rebased to 2.6.22. Following are the changes from TAKE5: 1) Rebased to 2.6.22 2) Added compat wrapper for x86_64 3) Dropped s390 and ia64 patches, since the platform maintaners can add the support for fallocate once it is in mainline. 4) Added a

[PATCH 1/7] manpage for fallocate

2007-07-10 Thread Amit K. Arora
Following is the modified version of the manpage originally submitted by David Chinner. Please use `nroff -man fallocate.2 | less` to view. .TH fallocate 2 .SH NAME fallocate \- allocate or remove file space .SH SYNOPSIS .nf .B #include sys/syscall.h .PP .BI int syscall(int, int fd, int mode,

[PATCH 2/7] fallocate() implementation in i386, x86_64 and powerpc

2007-07-10 Thread Amit K. Arora
From: Amit Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] sys_fallocate() implementation on i386, x86_64 and powerpc fallocate() is a new system call being proposed here which will allow applications to preallocate space to any file(s) in a file system. Each file system implementation that wants to use this feature

[PATCH 3/7] support new modes in fallocate

2007-07-10 Thread Amit K. Arora
From: Amit Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] Implement new flags and values for mode argument. This patch implements the new flags and values for the mode argument of the fallocate system call. It is based on the discussion between Andreas Dilger and David Chinner on the man page proposed (by the later)

[PATCH 4/7] ext4: fallocate support in ext4

2007-07-10 Thread Amit K. Arora
From: Amit Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] fallocate support in ext4 This patch implements -fallocate() inode operation in ext4. With this patch users of ext4 file systems will be able to use fallocate() system call for persistent preallocation. Current implementation only supports preallocation for

[PATCH 7/7] ext4: change for better extent-to-group alignment

2007-07-10 Thread Amit K. Arora
From: Amit Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change on-disk format for extent to represent uninitialized/initialized extents This change was suggested by Andreas Dilger as part of the following post: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02445.html This patch changes the EXT_MAX_LEN value and

[PATCH RFC] extent mapped page cache

2007-07-10 Thread Chris Mason
This patch aims to demonstrate one way to replace buffer heads with a few extent trees. Buffer heads provide a few different features: 1) Mapping of logical file offset to blocks on disk 2) Recording state (dirty, locked etc) 3) Providing a mechanism to access sub-page sized blocks. This patch

Re: [PATCH 1/7] manpage for fallocate

2007-07-10 Thread Heikki Orsila
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:48:20AM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: .BI int syscall(int, int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len); Correction: int syscall(int fd, int mode, ...), .SH ERRORS .TP .B EBADF .I fd is not a valid file descriptor, or is not opened for writing. .TP .B EFBIG .I

Re: [EXT4 set 1][PATCH 1/2] Add noextents mount option

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:35:48 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Add a mount option to turn off extents. Please update the changelog to describe the reason for making this change. Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c

Re: [EXT4 set 1][PATCH 2/2] Enable extents by default for ext4dev

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:01 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turn on extents feature by default in ext4 filesystem. User could use -o noextents to turn it off. Oh, there you go. Index: linux-2.6.22-rc4/fs/ext4/super.c

Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 3/5] cleanups: set_jbd2_64bit_feature for 16TB ext4 fs

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:32 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Set the journals JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on devices with more than 32bit block sizes during mount time. This ensure proper record lenth when writing to the journal. This patch isn't in Ted's kernel.org directory and

Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 1/5] cleanups: Propagate some i_flags to disk

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:12 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Propagate flags such as S_APPEND, S_IMMUTABLE, etc. from i_flags into ext4-specific i_flags. Hence, when someone sets these flags via a different interface than ioctl, they are stored correctly. This changelog is

Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 5/5] cleanups: Export jbd2-debug via debugfs

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:48 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 07, 2007 23:45 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote: The jbd2-debug file used to be located in /proc/sys/fs/jbd2-debug, but create_proc_entry() does not do lookups on file names with more that one directory deep.

Re: [EXT4 set 3][PATCH 1/1] ext4 nanosecond timestamp

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches. I don't know what the old nanosecond patches are. A link to a suitable changlog for those patches would do in a pinch. Preferable would be to write a proper

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:04 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch converts the 32-bit i_version in the generic inode to a 64-bit i_version field. That's obvious from the patch. But what was the reason for making this (unrelated to ext4) change? Please update the changelog

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 2/5] i_version: Add hi 32 bit inode version on ext4 on-disk inode

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:16 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch adds a 32-bit i_version_hi field to ext4_inode, which can be used for 64-bit inode versions. This field will store the higher 32 bits of the version, while Jean Noel's patch has added support to store the

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 3/5] i_version:ext4 inode version read/store

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:36 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch adds 64-bit inode version support to ext4. The lower 32 bits are stored in the osd1.linux1.l_i_version field while the high 32 bits are stored in the i_version_hi field newly created in the ext4_inode. So

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 4/5] i_version:ext4 inode version update

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:45 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch is on top of i_version_update_vfs. The i_version field of the inode is set on inode creation and incremented when the inode is being modified. Again, I don't think I've ever seen this patch before. It is at

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 5/5] i_version: noversion mount option to disable inode version updates

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:53 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Add a noversion mount option to disable inode version updates. Why is this option being offered to our users? To reduce disk traffic, like noatime? If so, what are the implications of this? What would the user lose?

Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:01 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch is on top of the nanosecond timestamp and i_version_hi patches. This sort of information isn't needed (or desired) when this patch hits the git tree. Please ensure that things like this are cleaned up before

Re: [EXT4 set 1][PATCH 1/2] Add noextents mount option

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:35:48 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Add a mount option to turn off extents. Please update the changelog to describe the reason for making this change. Sure, I will update the changelog,

Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 3/5] cleanups: set_jbd2_64bit_feature for 16TB ext4 fs

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:32 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Set the journals JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on devices with more than 32bit block sizes during mount time. This ensure proper record lenth when writing to

Re: [EXT4 set 1][PATCH 2/2] Enable extents by default for ext4dev

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:01 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turn on extents feature by default in ext4 filesystem. User could use -o noextents to turn it off. Oh, there you go. Index:

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-07-10 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:39:41 EDT, Ric Wheeler said: All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss, it is a promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent storage). You don't need to ask this kind of array to drain the cache. In fact, it might just

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:04 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch converts the 32-bit i_version in the generic inode to a 64-bit i_version field. That's obvious from the patch. But what was the reason for

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:09:40 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:04 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch converts the 32-bit i_version in the generic inode to a 64-bit

Re: [PATCH 1/7] manpage for fallocate

2007-07-10 Thread Barry Naujok
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:18:20 +1000, Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Following is the modified version of the manpage originally submitted by David Chinner. Please use `nroff -man fallocate.2 | less` to view. A few more touch-ups attached. Regards, Barry. fallocate.2 Description:

Re: [PATCH 2/7] fallocate() implementation in i386, x86_64 and powerpc

2007-07-10 Thread Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:50:00 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- linux-2.6.22.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c +++ linux-2.6.22/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c @@ -879,3 +879,11 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_fadvise64(int fd, return sys_fadvise64_64(fd, ((u64)offset_hi 32) |

Re: [EXT4 set 6][PATCH 1/1]Export jbd stats through procfs

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:10 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [PATCH] jbd2 stats through procfs The patch below updates the jbd stats patch to 2.6.20/jbd2. The initial patch was posted by Alex Tomas in December 2005 (http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4m=113538565128617w=2). It

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-07-10 Thread Tejun Heo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:39:41 EDT, Ric Wheeler said: All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss, it is a promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent storage). You don't need to ask this kind of array to drain the

Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.

2007-07-10 Thread Tejun Heo
Ric Wheeler wrote: Don't those thingies usually have NV cache or backed by battery such that ORDERED_DRAIN is enough? All of the high end arrays have non-volatile cache (read, on power loss, it is a promise that it will get all of your data out to permanent storage). You don't need to ask

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 18:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:09:40 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:37:04 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch converts

Re: [EXT4 set 6][PATCH 1/1]Export jbd stats through procfs

2007-07-10 Thread Cédric Augonnet
2007/7/10, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi all, + size = sizeof(struct transaction_stats_s); + s-stats = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); + if (s == NULL) { + kfree(s); + return -EIO; ENOMEM I'm sorry if i missed some point, but i just don't see the

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:21 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: On Tuesday July 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, thanks. It doesn't actually tell us why we want to implement this attribute and it doesn't tell us what the implications of failing to do so are, but I guess we can take that on trust

Re: [EXT4 set 1][PATCH 2/2] Enable extents by default for ext4dev

2007-07-10 Thread Dave Jones
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:35:13PM -0400, Mingming Cao wrote: Sorry about this. I was using version 0.04. The latest one I can find for now is 0.05(searching lkml), but it didn't catch this codling style bug either. I appreciate if anyone can point me the version 0.07, thanks It's now

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:19:16 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 18:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:09:40 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007

Re: [EXT4 set 6][PATCH 1/1]Export jbd stats through procfs

2007-07-10 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:21:49PM -0400, Cédric Augonnet wrote: 2007/7/10, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi all, + size = sizeof(struct transaction_stats_s); + s-stats = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); + if (s == NULL) { ^ + kfree(s); +

Re: [EXT4 set 6][PATCH 1/1]Export jbd stats through procfs

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:21:49 -0400 Cédric Augonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/7/10, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi all, + size = sizeof(struct transaction_stats_s); + s-stats = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); + if (s == NULL) { + kfree(s); +

Re: [PATCH 2/7] fallocate() implementation in i386, x86_64 and powerpc

2007-07-10 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:10:34PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:50:00 +0530 Amit K. Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- linux-2.6.22.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c +++ linux-2.6.22/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c @@ -879,3 +879,11 @@ asmlinkage long

Re: [EXT4 set 3][PATCH 1/1] ext4 nanosecond timestamp

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch is a spinoff of the old nanosecond patches. I don't know what the old nanosecond patches are. A link to a suitable changlog for those patches would

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Neil Brown
It just occurred to me: If i_version is 64bit, then knfsd would need to be careful when reading it on a 32bit host. What are the locking rules? Presumably it is only updated under i_mutex protection, but having to get i_mutex to read it would seem a little heavy handed. Should it use a

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:21 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: On Tuesday July 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, thanks. It doesn't actually tell us why we want to implement this attribute and it doesn't tell us what the implications of failing to do so are, but I guess we can take that on trust

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:09:08 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Chinneer pointed that we need to journal the version number updates together with the operations that causes the change of the inode version number, in order to survive server crashes so clients won't see the

Re: [EXT4 set 6][PATCH 1/1]Export jbd stats through procfs

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 21:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:21:49 -0400 Cédric Augonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/7/10, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi all, + size = sizeof(struct transaction_stats_s); + s-stats = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:05:27 +1000 Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just occurred to me: If i_version is 64bit, then knfsd would need to be careful when reading it on a 32bit host. What are the locking rules? Presumably it is only updated under i_mutex protection, but having

Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version

2007-07-10 Thread Mingming Cao
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 21:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:19:16 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 18:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:09:40 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-07-10 at

Re: [EXT4 set 2][PATCH 5/5] cleanups: Export jbd2-debug via debugfs

2007-07-10 Thread Jose R. Santos
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:30:25 -0700 Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:48 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 07, 2007 23:45 -0500, Jose R. Santos wrote: The jbd2-debug file used to be located in /proc/sys/fs/jbd2-debug, but

Re: [EXT4 set 7][PATCH 1/1]Remove 32000 subdirs limit.

2007-07-10 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:38:18 -0400 Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 17 17:21:08 2007 Hi, I have rebased this patch to 2.6.22-rc1 so that it can be added to the ext4 patch queue. It has been tested by creating more than 65000 subdirs and then deleting