On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:46:51PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> What more needs to be done to get this initial set of patches merged?
Bind Christoph to some tree in the Harz hills, so that he can't reject
them? :-)
Christoph, is there anything realistic that can be done to get over
your
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:46:51PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> What more needs to be done to get this initial set of patches merged?
Bind Christoph to some tree in the Harz hills, so that he can't reject
them? :-)
Christoph, is there anything realistic that can be done to get over
your
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:11:50AM +0200, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> +1 from me. This is something that many vendors need
> and have needed for a very long time. Getting this
> in will allow *large* amounts of existing storage to
> be migrated to Linux.
ZFS has NFSv4 richacls, and people seem to
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:11:50AM +0200, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> +1 from me. This is something that many vendors need
> and have needed for a very long time. Getting this
> in will allow *large* amounts of existing storage to
> be migrated to Linux.
ZFS has NFSv4 richacls, and people seem to
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:02:33AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> What more can I do to finally get this merged?
While I am not the one to comment on kernel specifics, from a pure Samba
user space perspective let me say: We need this. NOW.
Volker
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:02:33AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> What more can I do to finally get this merged?
While I am not the one to comment on kernel specifics, from a pure Samba
user space perspective let me say: We need this. NOW.
Volker
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any
> > model that mixes allow and deny ACE is a mistake.
>
> People can also learn and change
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any
> > model that mixes allow and deny ACE is a mistake.
>
> People can also learn and change
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:01:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:48:33 -0700 Christoph Hellwig
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 01:35:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > fincore() doesn't have to be ugly. Please address the design issues I
> > > raised. How is
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:08:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:41:25 +0100 Volker Lendecke
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 08:28:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > A thing which bugs me about pread2() is that it is specifically
> &
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 08:28:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> A thing which bugs me about pread2() is that it is specifically
> tailored to applications which are able to use a partial read result.
> ie, by sending it over the network.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Samba gets a pread
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 08:28:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
A thing which bugs me about pread2() is that it is specifically
tailored to applications which are able to use a partial read result.
ie, by sending it over the network.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Samba gets a pread
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:08:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 06:41:25 +0100 Volker Lendecke
volker.lende...@sernet.de wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 08:28:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
A thing which bugs me about pread2() is that it is specifically
tailored
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:01:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:48:33 -0700 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 01:35:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
fincore() doesn't have to be ugly. Please address the design issues I
raised.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:11:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I can see all that, but it's handwaving. Yes, preadv2() will perform
> better in some circumstances than fincore+pread. But how much better?
> Enough to justify this approach, or not?
>
> Alas, the only way to really settle that
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:11:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
I can see all that, but it's handwaving. Yes, preadv2() will perform
better in some circumstances than fincore+pread. But how much better?
Enough to justify this approach, or not?
Alas, the only way to really settle that is to
adpool.
With best regards,
Volker Lendecke
--
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-37-0, fax: +49-551-37-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kont...@sernet.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
.
With best regards,
Volker Lendecke
--
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-37-0, fax: +49-551-37-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kont...@sernet.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:42:04AM -0400, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> - Non-blocking I/O has long been supported with a well-understood set
>of operations - O_NONBLOCK and fcntl(). Why do we need a different
>mechanism here - one that's only understood in the context of
>buffered file
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:42:04AM -0400, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
- Non-blocking I/O has long been supported with a well-understood set
of operations - O_NONBLOCK and fcntl(). Why do we need a different
mechanism here - one that's only understood in the context of
buffered file I/O?
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:27:21PM -0400, Milosz Tanski wrote:
> In a VLDB like workload this would enable me to lower the latency of
> common fast requests and. By fast requests I mean ones that do not
> require much data, the data is cached, or there's a predictable read
> pattern (read-ahead).
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:27:21PM -0400, Milosz Tanski wrote:
In a VLDB like workload this would enable me to lower the latency of
common fast requests and. By fast requests I mean ones that do not
require much data, the data is cached, or there's a predictable read
pattern (read-ahead).
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:31:39PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> It's not possible with the current API to do it through open syscall.
> Another possibility is to look at /proc/locks. But I think we really
> need O_DELETE flag that will force a file to be removed on close - we
> will be able to
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:31:39PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
It's not possible with the current API to do it through open syscall.
Another possibility is to look at /proc/locks. But I think we really
need O_DELETE flag that will force a file to be removed on close - we
will be able to do
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:20:43PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> > One question: If Samba wants to open a file for delete
> > access, there's no corresponding flag in the open
> > permissions. There can be the case where Samba wants to open
> > *just* for future unlink, no read or write access
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 02:07:05PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> If O_DENYDELETE flag is specified and the open succeded,
> any further unlink operation will fail with -ESHAREDENIED
> untill this open is closed. Now this flag is processed by
> VFS and CIFS filesystem. NFS returns -EINVAL
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 02:07:05PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
If O_DENYDELETE flag is specified and the open succeded,
any further unlink operation will fail with -ESHAREDENIED
untill this open is closed. Now this flag is processed by
VFS and CIFS filesystem. NFS returns -EINVAL for
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:20:43PM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
One question: If Samba wants to open a file for delete
access, there's no corresponding flag in the open
permissions. There can be the case where Samba wants to open
*just* for future unlink, no read or write access required.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:23:03AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
> > http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2
> > > > .html
> > > >
> > > > See the section entitled "First Implementation Past the Post".
> > >
> > > Interesting that Jeremy actually suggested the
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:23:03AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2
.html
See the section entitled First Implementation Past the Post.
Interesting that Jeremy actually suggested the implementation should
have had
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:12:03AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
> > This blog post of Jeremy's explains some of the history:
> >
> >
> > http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2
> > .html
> >
> > See the section entitled "First Implementation Past the Post".
>
>
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:12:03AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
This blog post of Jeremy's explains some of the history:
http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2
.html
See the section entitled First Implementation Past the Post.
Interesting that Jeremy
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
> > I guess my main concern is that while I'm interested in adding interfaces
> that
> > make it _easier_ to implement fileservers, I'm not terribly interested in
> > adding interfaces that are _specific_ to implementing them.
> >
> >
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:30AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
I guess my main concern is that while I'm interested in adding interfaces
that
make it _easier_ to implement fileservers, I'm not terribly interested in
adding interfaces that are _specific_ to implementing them.
Whatever
34 matches
Mail list logo
