On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 07:32:36AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:50:10PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>
> > Right, I missed merging the fix-up patch in linux-next into my pull-request.
> > At a glance, I think there is no problem; except 80 column width, though.
> >
> > Also,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:50:10PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Right, I missed merging the fix-up patch in linux-next into my pull-request.
> At a glance, I think there is no problem; except 80 column width, though.
>
> Also, agreed that I need to take a look at deleting the dentry to deal with
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:33:34AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Said that, f2fs_symlink() looks odd - we create a directory entry *before*
> doing page_symlink(). And if it (or encryption) fails, I don't see anything
> that would remove that new directory entry. What are we ending up with
> in such
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:33:34AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
Said that, f2fs_symlink() looks odd - we create a directory entry *before*
doing page_symlink(). And if it (or encryption) fails, I don't see anything
that would remove that new directory entry. What are we ending up with
in such
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:50:10PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
Right, I missed merging the fix-up patch in linux-next into my pull-request.
At a glance, I think there is no problem; except 80 column width, though.
Also, agreed that I need to take a look at deleting the dentry to deal with
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 07:32:36AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:50:10PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
Right, I missed merging the fix-up patch in linux-next into my pull-request.
At a glance, I think there is no problem; except 80 column width, though.
Also, agreed that
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:33:34AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:42:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > New features are:
> > > o per-file encryption (e.g., ext4)
> >
> > The new encrypted symlinks needed
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:42:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >
> > New features are:
> > o per-file encryption (e.g., ext4)
>
> The new encrypted symlinks needed fixups for the changes that happened
> meanwhile to the symlink handling.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>
> New features are:
> o per-file encryption (e.g., ext4)
The new encrypted symlinks needed fixups for the changes that happened
meanwhile to the symlink handling. I did all that in my merge, and I
*think* I got it all right, but I would like
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:33:34AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:42:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim jaeg...@kernel.org wrote:
New features are:
o per-file encryption (e.g., ext4)
The new encrypted symlinks needed
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim jaeg...@kernel.org wrote:
New features are:
o per-file encryption (e.g., ext4)
The new encrypted symlinks needed fixups for the changes that happened
meanwhile to the symlink handling. I did all that in my merge, and I
*think* I got it all right,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:42:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Jaegeuk Kim jaeg...@kernel.org wrote:
New features are:
o per-file encryption (e.g., ext4)
The new encrypted symlinks needed fixups for the changes that happened
meanwhile to the symlink
12 matches
Mail list logo
