On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:05:35PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > We should only export kernel interfaces and ufs_fs.h isn't one. silo
> > wants it because it defines the ufs format - but the linux structs for
> > that can and do change, e.g. adding unions when we add support for the
> >
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:46:16AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
> > through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
> > touches up the
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:46:16AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
> through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
> touches up the relationship between ufs_fs.h and its sub headers (like
>
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
> > > through the cracks ? assuming the
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
> > through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
> > touches up the relationship
On 2/8/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
> through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
> touches up the relationship between
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
> through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
> touches up the relationship between ufs_fs.h and its sub headers (like
> ufs_fs_sb.h) so
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
touches up the relationship between ufs_fs.h and its sub headers (like
ufs_fs_sb.h) so that
On 2/8/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
touches up the relationship between
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
touches up the relationship between
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 10:10 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 02:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:46:16AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
touches up the relationship between ufs_fs.h and its sub headers (like
ufs_fs_sb.h)
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:46:16AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
touches up the relationship
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:05:35PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
We should only export kernel interfaces and ufs_fs.h isn't one. silo
wants it because it defines the ufs format - but the linux structs for
that can and do change, e.g. adding unions when we add support for the
gazillion+1st
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
touches up the relationship between ufs_fs.h and its sub headers (like
ufs_fs_sb.h) so that we can export it ... the silo bootloader takes advantage
of
was ufs_fs.h purposefully not exported to userspace or did it just slip
through the cracks ? assuming the latter scenario, the attached patch
touches up the relationship between ufs_fs.h and its sub headers (like
ufs_fs_sb.h) so that we can export it ... the silo bootloader takes advantage
of
18 matches
Mail list logo
