I'd like to propose that the first 3 patches be merged in -mm and even
mainline, pending review.
Erez Zadok (4):
VFS: apply coding standards to fs/ioctl.c
VFS: swap do_ioctl and vfs_ioctl names
VFS: factor out three helpers for FIBMAP/FIONBIO/FIOASYNC file ioctls
Un
BTW, what's the origin of this oddity in fs/ioctl.c:
#ifdef __sparc__
/* SunOS compatibility item. */
if (O_NONBLOCK != O_NDELAY)
flag |= O_NDELAY;
#endif
It seems rather odd to have architecture-specific code in the VFS, no?
Erez.
-
To unsubscribe from this
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 08:22:40AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > They are just treated as part of the parameter explanation text.
> > I don't see any problem with them.
>
> Well, it's completely inconsistant with any other kerneldoc..
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 08:22:40AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
They are just treated as part of the parameter explanation text.
I don't see any problem with them.
Well, it's completely inconsistant with any other kerneldoc..
If it
BTW, what's the origin of this oddity in fs/ioctl.c:
#ifdef __sparc__
/* SunOS compatibility item. */
if (O_NONBLOCK != O_NDELAY)
flag |= O_NDELAY;
#endif
It seems rather odd to have architecture-specific code in the VFS, no?
Erez.
-
To unsubscribe from this
to propose that the first 3 patches be merged in -mm and even
mainline, pending review.
Erez Zadok (4):
VFS: apply coding standards to fs/ioctl.c
VFS: swap do_ioctl and vfs_ioctl names
VFS: factor out three helpers for FIBMAP/FIONBIO/FIOASYNC file ioctls
Unionfs: use vfs_ioctl
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ioctl.c | 164 +++-
1 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index c2a773e..652cacf 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@ -12,8 +12,8
because the names vfs_XXX should
preferably be reserved to callable VFS functions which modules may call, as
many other vfs_XXX functions already do. Export the new vfs_ioctl to GPL
modules so others can use it (including Unionfs and eCryptfs). Add DocBook
for new vfs_ioctl.
Signed-off-by: Erez
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ioctl.c | 129 +++-
1 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index 1ab7b7d..cd8c1a3 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@ -53,32 +53,34
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c | 36 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
index 7654bcb..c99b519 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
+++ b
because the names vfs_XXX should
preferably be reserved to callable VFS functions which modules may call, as
many other vfs_XXX functions already do. Export the new vfs_ioctl to GPL
modules so others can use it (including Unionfs and eCryptfs). Add DocBook
for new vfs_ioctl.
Signed-off-by: Erez
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c | 32 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
index 50e5775..c99b519 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
++
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ioctl.c | 164 +++-
1 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index c2a773e..652cacf 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@ -12,8
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ioctl.c | 128 ++-
1 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index 34e3f58..8dd2ef1 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@
I'd like to propose that the first 3 patches be merged in -mm and even
mainline, pending review.
Erez Zadok (4):
VFS: apply coding standards to fs/ioctl.c
VFS: swap do_ioctl and vfs_ioctl names
VFS: factor out three helpers for FIBMAP/FIONBIO/FIOASYNC file ioctls
Unionfs: use vfs_
Huge,
I took your advise regarding ~(__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO), AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE,
and such. I revised my unionfs_writepage and unionfs_sync_page, and tested
it under memory pressure: I have a couple of live CDs that use tmpfs and can
deterministically reproduce the conditions resulting in A_W_A.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> Nice, I always hated these double-indented switch statements.
>
> > + case FIBMAP:
> > + {
> > + struct address_space *mapping = filp->f_mapping;
> > + int res;
> > + /* do we support this mess? */
> > +
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes:
Nice, I always hated these double-indented switch statements.
+ case FIBMAP:
+ {
+ struct address_space *mapping = filp-f_mapping;
+ int res;
+ /* do we support this mess? */
+ if
Huge,
I took your advise regarding ~(__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO), AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE,
and such. I revised my unionfs_writepage and unionfs_sync_page, and tested
it under memory pressure: I have a couple of live CDs that use tmpfs and can
deterministically reproduce the conditions resulting in A_W_A.
that the first 3 patches be merged in -mm and even
mainline, pending review.
Erez Zadok (4):
VFS: apply coding standards to fs/ioctl.c
VFS: swap do_ioctl and vfs_ioctl names
VFS: factor out three helpers for FIBMAP/FIONBIO/FIOASYNC file ioctls
Unionfs: use vfs_ioctl
fs
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ioctl.c | 128 ++-
1 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index 34e3f58..8dd2ef1 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@ -54,32 +54,34
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c | 32 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
index 50e5775..c99b519 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
+++ b/fs
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ioctl.c | 164 +++-
1 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index c2a773e..652cacf 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@ -12,8 +12,8
because the names vfs_XXX should
preferably be reserved to callable VFS functions which modules may call, as
many other vfs_XXX functions already do. Export the new vfs_ioctl to GPL
modules so others can use it (including Unionfs and eCryptfs). Add DocBook
for new vfs_ioctl.
Signed-off-by: Erez
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ioctl.c | 164 +++-
1 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index c2a773e..652cacf 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@ -12,8
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c | 32 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
index 50e5775..c99b519 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
++
because the names vfs_XXX should
preferably be reserved to callable VFS functions which modules may call,
as many other vfs_XXX functions already do. Export the new vfs_ioctl to
modules so others can use it (including Unionfs and eCryptfs).
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
ng Unionfs and
eCryptfs).
Patch 3: demonstrates how Unionfs can use the new vfs_ioctl. I successfully
tested unionfs with this new exported vfs_ioctl. (eCryptfs could do the
same.)
I'd like to propose that the first two patches be merged in -mm and even
mainline, pending review.
Erez Zadok (3):
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:48:04PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > Why? Are you concerned that the security policy may change after a module
> > is loaded?
>
> No, it's a matter of proper layering. We generall
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
> > If you've got suggestions how I can handle unionfs_write more cleanly, or
> > comments on the above possibilities, I'd love to hear them.
>
> For now I think you s
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
If you've got suggestions how I can handle unionfs_write more cleanly, or
comments on the above possibilities, I'd love to hear them.
For now I think you should pursue the ~(__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:48:04PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
Why? Are you concerned that the security policy may change after a module
is loaded?
No, it's a matter of proper layering. We generally don't want modules
like stackabke
and
eCryptfs).
Patch 3: demonstrates how Unionfs can use the new vfs_ioctl. I successfully
tested unionfs with this new exported vfs_ioctl. (eCryptfs could do the
same.)
I'd like to propose that the first two patches be merged in -mm and even
mainline, pending review.
Erez Zadok (3):
VFS
because the names vfs_XXX should
preferably be reserved to callable VFS functions which modules may call,
as many other vfs_XXX functions already do. Export the new vfs_ioctl to
modules so others can use it (including Unionfs and eCryptfs).
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ioctl.c | 164 +++-
1 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
index c2a773e..652cacf 100644
--- a/fs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ioctl.c
@@ -12,8 +12,8
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c | 32 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
index 50e5775..c99b519 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
+++ b/fs
That's a nice historical review, Huge, of how got into these mess we're in
now -- it all starts with good intentions. :-)
On a related note, I would just love to get rid of calling the lower
->writepage in unionfs b/c I can't even tell if I have a lower page to use
all the time. I'd prefer to
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this
> patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc->for_reclaim case could indeed
> be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this
patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc-for_reclaim case could indeed
be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case has
That's a nice historical review, Huge, of how got into these mess we're in
now -- it all starts with good intentions. :-)
On a related note, I would just love to get rid of calling the lower
-writepage in unionfs b/c I can't even tell if I have a lower page to use
all the time. I'd prefer to
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ERROR: "security_inode_permission" [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!
> > ER
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> Sorry for my delay, here are a few replies.
>
> > In unionfs_writepage() I tried to emulate as best possible what the lower
> > f/s will have returned to the VFS. Since tmpfs's ->writepage can return
> > AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE and re-mark
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >
> > I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that
> > ->writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for
> > !wbc->for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
I wonder whether _not setting_ BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK implies that
-writepage() will never return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE for
!wbc-for_reclaim case which would explain why we haven't hit this bug
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Dickins writes:
Sorry for my delay, here are a few replies.
In unionfs_writepage() I tried to emulate as best possible what the lower
f/s will have returned to the VFS. Since tmpfs's -writepage can return
AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE and re-mark its page as
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:51:14PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ERROR: security_inode_permission [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined!
ERROR: security_file_ioctl [fs/unionfs/unionfs.ko] undefined
e Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EM
This is no longer necessary since struct writeback_control no longer has a
fs_private field which lower file systems (esp. nfs) use. Plus, unionfs now
defines its own ->writepages method.
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/mmap
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/inode.c |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --g
Implement unionfs_writepages. As per
mm/filemap.c:__filemap_fdatawrite_range(), don't call our writepage if the
lower mapping has BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK capability set.
Signed-off-by: Pekka J Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/mm
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/union_fs.h |3 ---
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/union_fs.h b/include/linux/union_fs.h
index 7f8dcc3..d29318f 100644
--- a/include/linux/union_fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/unio
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/super.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/super.c b/fs/unionfs/super.c
index 515689d..7d28045 100644
---
This is mostly an informational message, not an error.
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/dentry.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/dentry.c b/fs/unionfs/dentry.c
index 6bab9d6..a3d7b6e 100644
--- a/fs/u
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/debug.c |4
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/debug.c b/fs/unionfs/debug.c
index 68692d7..894bf7c 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/debug.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/debug.c
@@ -132,6 +132,9 @
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/rename.c |8 +---
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/rename.c b/fs/unionfs/rename.c
index 91d41d4..1ab474f 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/rename.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/rename.c
@@ -40,10
ing:
Andrew Morton (2):
Unionfs: security convert lsm into a static interface fix
Unionfs: slab api remove useless ctor parameter and reorder parameters
Erez Zadok (6):
Unionfs: support lower filesystems without writeback capability
Unionfs: don't printk trivial message u
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Trond Myklebust writes:
>
> On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 17:35 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
>
> > Trond, I verified that w/ the above patch the problem is w/ nfs: the client
> > leaves .nfsXXX files behind for every file unlinked while open. L
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Trond Myklebust writes:
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 17:35 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
Trond, I verified that w/ the above patch the problem is w/ nfs: the client
leaves .nfsXXX files behind for every file unlinked while open. Let me know
when you get a fix and I'll
:
Andrew Morton (2):
Unionfs: security convert lsm into a static interface fix
Unionfs: slab api remove useless ctor parameter and reorder parameters
Erez Zadok (6):
Unionfs: support lower filesystems without writeback capability
Unionfs: don't printk trivial message upon
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/rename.c |8 +---
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/rename.c b/fs/unionfs/rename.c
index 91d41d4..1ab474f 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/rename.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/rename.c
@@ -40,10 +40,12
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/debug.c |4
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/debug.c b/fs/unionfs/debug.c
index 68692d7..894bf7c 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/debug.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/debug.c
@@ -132,6 +132,9 @@ void
This is mostly an informational message, not an error.
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/dentry.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/dentry.c b/fs/unionfs/dentry.c
index 6bab9d6..a3d7b6e 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs
-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/super.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/super.c b/fs/unionfs/super.c
index 515689d..7d28045 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/super.c
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/union_fs.h |3 ---
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/union_fs.h b/include/linux/union_fs.h
index 7f8dcc3..d29318f 100644
--- a/include/linux/union_fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/union_fs.h
Implement unionfs_writepages. As per
mm/filemap.c:__filemap_fdatawrite_range(), don't call our writepage if the
lower mapping has BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK capability set.
Signed-off-by: Pekka J Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/mmap.c | 23
This is no longer necessary since struct writeback_control no longer has a
fs_private field which lower file systems (esp. nfs) use. Plus, unionfs now
defines its own -writepages method.
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/mmap.c | 39
' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/unionfs/inode.c |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/inode.c b/fs/unionfs/inode.c
index
]
Cc: James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stephen Smalley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
security/security.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff
Linus, is there a preferred name to refer to the kernel version in your tree
after 2.6.23 is out (and the official 2.6.23.y git was created) but before
you release 2.6.24-rc1? I've seen online references to it as "2.6.24",
"2.6.24++", "2.6.24-rc0", etc. Since your top-level Makefile still says
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
> - if you are a git user, and got it that way, just use the git name, and
>use "git describe" to get it.
>
>So my current head is called "v2
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erez Zadok writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Trond Myklebust writes:
[...]
> > Looking at
> > nfs_proc_create(), there is indeed a missing call to
> > nfs_mark_for_revalidate(). The reason why you need such a call being
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Trond Myklebust writes:
>
> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 22:33 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > Trond, good news. I was able to narrow down the problem to purely the
> > client-side, probably dcache/readdir related, and I have a shell script th
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Trond Myklebust writes:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 22:33 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
Trond, good news. I was able to narrow down the problem to purely the
client-side, probably dcache/readdir related, and I have a shell script that
deterministically triggers
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erez Zadok writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Trond Myklebust writes:
[...]
Looking at
nfs_proc_create(), there is indeed a missing call to
nfs_mark_for_revalidate(). The reason why you need such a call being the
usual one: NFSv2 doesn't provide post-op
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Linus Torvalds writes:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
- if you are a git user, and got it that way, just use the git name, and
use git describe to get it.
So my current head is called v2.6.23-6562-g8add244 which tells you
three
Linus, is there a preferred name to refer to the kernel version in your tree
after 2.6.23 is out (and the official 2.6.23.y git was created) but before
you release 2.6.24-rc1? I've seen online references to it as 2.6.24,
2.6.24++, 2.6.24-rc0, etc. Since your top-level Makefile still says
2.6.23,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Linus Torvalds writes:
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
> >
> > i386
>
> Hmm. Doesn't happen here, not on x86-64 nor i386.
>
> Probably some subtle config issue as usual, where some configuration
> does
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Linus Torvalds writes:
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
> >
> > Trond, with Linus's latest tree, you need to #include in
> > fs/nfs/unlink.c, else I get:
> >
> > CC [M] fs/nfs/unlink.o
> > fs/nfs
Trond, good news. I was able to narrow down the problem to purely the
client-side, probably dcache/readdir related, and I have a shell script that
deterministically triggers the problem each time for me (this is a FC6 image
under Vmware 6.0.1). Here's a short shell script which reliably triggers
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Trond Myklebust writes:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please pull from the repository at
>
>git pull git://git.linux-nfs.org/pub/linux/nfs-2.6.git
>
> This will update the following files through the appended changesets.
>
> Cheers,
> Trond
Trond, with Linus's
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Trond Myklebust writes:
>
> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 17:40 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
> > Trond, I was able to narrow down the problem w/o using unionfs at all (yay!
> > :-). All I do is setup a loop device, mkfs it as ext2, m
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Trond Myklebust writes:
>
> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:49 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > I'm testing unionfs on top of nfsv2/3/4, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
> > 4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. A lot of my unionfs regressi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel writes:
> On Fri, 19 October 2007 13:53:40 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> >
> > I've been having this problem for some time with mtd, which I use to mount
> > jffs2 images (for unionfs testing). I've seen
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel writes:
> On Fri, 19 October 2007 13:53:40 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> >
> > I've been having this problem for some time with mtd, which I use to mount
> > jffs2 images (for unionfs testing). I've seen
I've been having this problem for some time with mtd, which I use to mount
jffs2 images (for unionfs testing). I've seen it in several recent major
kernels, including 2.6.24. Here's the sequence of ops I perform:
# cp jffs2-empty.img /tmp/foo
# losetup /dev/loop0 /tmp/foo
# modprobe mtdblock
#
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Piggin writes:
[...]
> Hmm, looks like jffs2_write_end is writing more than we actually ask it
> to, and returns that back.
>
> unsigned aligned_start = start & ~3;
>
> and
>
> if (end == PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) {
> /* When writing
David,
I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass when
unionfs is stacked on top of jffs2, other than my truncate test -- whic
tries to truncate files up/down (through the union, which then is
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Piggin writes:
[...]
Hmm, looks like jffs2_write_end is writing more than we actually ask it
to, and returns that back.
unsigned aligned_start = start ~3;
and
if (end == PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) {
/* When writing out the end
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel writes:
On Fri, 19 October 2007 13:53:40 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
I've been having this problem for some time with mtd, which I use to mount
jffs2 images (for unionfs testing). I've seen it in several recent major
kernels
Trond, good news. I was able to narrow down the problem to purely the
client-side, probably dcache/readdir related, and I have a shell script that
deterministically triggers the problem each time for me (this is a FC6 image
under Vmware 6.0.1). Here's a short shell script which reliably triggers
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Trond Myklebust writes:
Hi Linus,
Please pull from the repository at
git pull git://git.linux-nfs.org/pub/linux/nfs-2.6.git
This will update the following files through the appended changesets.
Cheers,
Trond
Trond, with Linus's latest tree, you
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Linus Torvalds writes:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
Trond, with Linus's latest tree, you need to #include linux/sched.h in
fs/nfs/unlink.c, else I get:
CC [M] fs/nfs/unlink.o
fs/nfs/unlink.c: In function 'nfs_dec_sillycount':
fs/nfs
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Trond Myklebust writes:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:49 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
I'm testing unionfs on top of nfsv2/3/4, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. A lot of my unionfs regression
tests are failing on nfs2, b/c
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Trond Myklebust writes:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 17:40 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
Trond, I was able to narrow down the problem w/o using unionfs at all (yay!
:-). All I do is setup a loop device, mkfs it as ext2, mount it, then
export it to localhost
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Linus Torvalds writes:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Erez Zadok wrote:
i386
Hmm. Doesn't happen here, not on x86-64 nor i386.
Probably some subtle config issue as usual, where some configuration
doesn't include sched.h indirectly.
But I'll add the direct
I've been having this problem for some time with mtd, which I use to mount
jffs2 images (for unionfs testing). I've seen it in several recent major
kernels, including 2.6.24. Here's the sequence of ops I perform:
# cp jffs2-empty.img /tmp/foo
# losetup /dev/loop0 /tmp/foo
# modprobe mtdblock
#
David,
I'm testing unionfs on top of jffs2, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. All of my unionfs tests pass when
unionfs is stacked on top of jffs2, other than my truncate test -- whic
tries to truncate files up/down (through the union, which then is
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel writes:
On Fri, 19 October 2007 13:53:40 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
I've been having this problem for some time with mtd, which I use to mount
jffs2 images (for unionfs testing). I've seen it in several recent major
kernels
I'm testing unionfs on top of nfsv2/3/4, using 2.6.24 as of linus's commit
4fa4d23fa20de67df919030c1216295664866ad7. A lot of my unionfs regression
tests are failing on nfs2, b/c files that should be deleted, aren't. It
feels like there may be a ref leak that prevents the files from being
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Garzik writes:
> Erez Zadok wrote:
> > I'm using Linus's git tree as of commit
> > d85714d81cc0408daddb68c10f7fd69eafe7c213. I built that kernel under vmware
> > workstation 6.0.1 which emulates a pcnet32 nic. When I only tur
501 - 600 of 808 matches
Mail list logo
