On Sep 13 2007 14:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Al Boldi:
>> It turns out that the problem was this in dentry.c:
> :::
>> Commenting the #if block makes it compile now.
>>
>> Works great too. Even performance wise. Needs more testing though.
>
>Thank you for your report and forwarding
On Sep 13 2007 14:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Al Boldi:
It turns out that the problem was this in dentry.c:
:::
Commenting the #if block makes it compile now.
Works great too. Even performance wise. Needs more testing though.
Thank you for your report and forwarding your original
Al Boldi:
> It turns out that the problem was this in dentry.c:
:::
> Commenting the #if block makes it compile now.
>
> Works great too. Even performance wise. Needs more testing though.
Thank you for your report and forwarding your original message.
And I am glad that it is working
}
Commenting the #if block makes it compile now.
Works great too. Even performance wise. Needs more testing though.
You really need to post a cleaned up version for review and possible
inclusion into mainline. It definitely looks solid.
Thanks!
--
Al
-- Original Message --
Jan Engelhardt:
> On Sep 12 2007 13:46, Al Boldi wrote:
::
> >This is way too complicated, but I tried it anyway, only to find it doesn't
> >compile:
>
> cvs up -D 2007-08-07
>
> that one works ;-)
Jan, do you mean that only the one month old version could be compiled?
It it rather
On Sep 12 2007 13:46, Al Boldi wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> But if you really want to read or try it, you can get all source files
>> from sourceforge. Read http://aufs.sf.net and try,
>> $ cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/aufs login
>> (CVS password is empty)
>> $ cvs -z3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But if you really want to read or try it, you can get all source files
> from sourceforge. Read http://aufs.sf.net and try,
> $ cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/aufs login
> (CVS password is empty)
> $ cvs -z3 -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/aufs co
> aufs
On Sep 12 2007 13:46, Al Boldi wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if you really want to read or try it, you can get all source files
from sourceforge. Read http://aufs.sf.net and try,
$ cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/aufs login
(CVS password is empty)
$ cvs -z3 -d:pserver:[EMAIL
Jan Engelhardt:
On Sep 12 2007 13:46, Al Boldi wrote:
::
This is way too complicated, but I tried it anyway, only to find it doesn't
compile:
cvs up -D 2007-08-07
that one works ;-)
Jan, do you mean that only the one month old version could be compiled?
It it rather surprise
for review and possible
inclusion into mainline. It definitely looks solid.
Thanks!
--
Al
-- Original Message --
Subject: Re: [RFC] Union Mount: Readdir approaches
Date: Wednesday 12 September 2007 01:46 pm
From: Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Al Boldi:
It turns out that the problem was this in dentry.c:
:::
Commenting the #if block makes it compile now.
Works great too. Even performance wise. Needs more testing though.
Thank you for your report and forwarding your original message.
And I am glad that it is working for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if you really want to read or try it, you can get all source files
from sourceforge. Read http://aufs.sf.net and try,
$ cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/aufs login
(CVS password is empty)
$ cvs -z3 -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/aufs co
aufs
This
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek":
> So, if I understand correctly, you create the entire block as if you were
> going to write to disk? Unionfs keeps the data in a linked list.
Basically yes.
But the dir block in cache has no hole which is contiguous memory.
Junjiro Okajima
-
To unsubscribe from this
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek:
So, if I understand correctly, you create the entire block as if you were
going to write to disk? Unionfs keeps the data in a linked list.
Basically yes.
But the dir block in cache has no hole which is contiguous memory.
Junjiro Okajima
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:54:18PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When the first
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > When the first readdir is issued:
> > > - call vfs_readdir for every underlying
Matt Keenan:
> This sounds like a good approach. How does aufs handle low memory
> situations? Union mounts seem to be quite common on low memory embedded
> systems. Is there a way for the VM to signal to aufs/the union
> filesystem to trim its cache? Also on the memory consumption front I
I
Hello Jeff,
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek":
> Unless I missunderstood something, Unionfs uses the same approach. Even
> Unionfs's ODF branch does the same thing. The major difference is that we
> keep the cache in a file on a disk.
The approach unionfs-2.1.2 took differs from mine.
Major difference is,
-
Hello Jeff,
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek:
Unless I missunderstood something, Unionfs uses the same approach. Even
Unionfs's ODF branch does the same thing. The major difference is that we
keep the cache in a file on a disk.
The approach unionfs-2.1.2 took differs from mine.
Major difference is,
- in
Matt Keenan:
This sounds like a good approach. How does aufs handle low memory
situations? Union mounts seem to be quite common on low memory embedded
systems. Is there a way for the VM to signal to aufs/the union
filesystem to trim its cache? Also on the memory consumption front I
I also
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:39:41PM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the first readdir is issued:
- call vfs_readdir for every underlying opened dir
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:54:18PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josef 'Jeff' Sipek writes:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the first readdir is issued:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello Bharata,
> I am developing a linux stackable/unification filesystem too.
>
> Bharata B Rao:
>
>> Questions
>> -
>>
> :::
>
>> First of all, should we even expect a sane lseek(2) on union mounted
>> directories ? If not, will the Approach 2,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" writes:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > When the first readdir is issued:
> > > - call vfs_readdir for every underlying opened
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > When the first readdir is issued:
> > - call vfs_readdir for every underlying opened dir (file) object.
> > - store every entry to either the hash table for
On Sep 7 2007 11:16, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>Questions
>-
>The main problem in getting a sane readdir() implementation in Union Mount
>is the fact that a single vfs object (file structure) is used to represent
>more than one (underlying) directory. Because of this, it is unclear as to
>how
Al Boldi:
> > If you are interested in this approach, please refer to
> > http://aufs.sf.net. It is working and used by several people.
>
> Any chance you can post a patch against 2.6.22?
Unfortunately there are many reasons to keep me away from sending a
patch.
- it is large (48 source files).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you are interested in this approach, please refer to
> http://aufs.sf.net. It is working and used by several people.
Any chance you can post a patch against 2.6.22?
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> When the first readdir is issued:
> - call vfs_readdir for every underlying opened dir (file) object.
> - store every entry to either the hash table for the result or the
> whiteout, when the same-named entry didn't exist in
Hello Bharata,
I am developing a linux stackable/unification filesystem too.
Bharata B Rao:
> Questions
> -
:::
> First of all, should we even expect a sane lseek(2) on union mounted
> directories ? If not, will the Approach 2, which works uniformly for
> all filesystem types be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are interested in this approach, please refer to
http://aufs.sf.net. It is working and used by several people.
Any chance you can post a patch against 2.6.22?
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of
On Sep 7 2007 11:16, Bharata B Rao wrote:
Questions
-
The main problem in getting a sane readdir() implementation in Union Mount
is the fact that a single vfs object (file structure) is used to represent
more than one (underlying) directory. Because of this, it is unclear as to
how
Al Boldi:
If you are interested in this approach, please refer to
http://aufs.sf.net. It is working and used by several people.
Any chance you can post a patch against 2.6.22?
Unfortunately there are many reasons to keep me away from sending a
patch.
- it is large (48 source files).
- it
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the first readdir is issued:
- call vfs_readdir for every underlying opened dir (file) object.
- store every entry to either the hash table for the result or the
whiteout, when the same-named entry didn't exist in the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josef 'Jeff' Sipek writes:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the first readdir is issued:
- call vfs_readdir for every underlying opened dir (file)
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:28:55PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:31:26PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When the first readdir is issued:
- call vfs_readdir for every underlying opened dir (file) object.
- store every entry to either the hash table for the
Hello Bharata,
I am developing a linux stackable/unification filesystem too.
Bharata B Rao:
Questions
-
:::
First of all, should we even expect a sane lseek(2) on union mounted
directories ? If not, will the Approach 2, which works uniformly for
all filesystem types be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Bharata,
I am developing a linux stackable/unification filesystem too.
Bharata B Rao:
Questions
-
:::
First of all, should we even expect a sane lseek(2) on union mounted
directories ? If not, will the Approach 2, which works
38 matches
Mail list logo
