Greg KH wrote:
> Are they willing to trade off the performance of LTT to get this? I
> thought this was being touted as a "when you need to test" type of
> thing, not a "run it all the time" type of feature.
The problem is that you never know beforehand when you're going to
get that weird
Greg KH wrote:
Are they willing to trade off the performance of LTT to get this? I
thought this was being touted as a when you need to test type of
thing, not a run it all the time type of feature.
The problem is that you never know beforehand when you're going to
get that weird glitch on
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 06:27:43PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:28PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> >
> >>Perhaps the logical solution is to implement debugfs in terms of relayfs?
> >
> >
> >What do you mean by this statement?
>
> I mean that if,
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:28PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
Perhaps the logical solution is to implement debugfs in terms of relayfs?
What do you mean by this statement?
I mean that if, as you say, debugfs is very similar to relayfs only more
restricted (i.e. a debugging
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:28PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
>
> Perhaps the logical solution is to implement debugfs in terms of relayfs?
What do you mean by this statement?
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:38:25PM -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
>
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Hm, how about this idea for cutting about 500 more lines from the code:
> >
> > Why not drop the "fs" part of relayfs and just make the code a set of
> > struct file_operations. That way you could have
Karim Yaghmour wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Hm, how about this idea for cutting about 500 more lines from the code:
Why not drop the "fs" part of relayfs and just make the code a set of
struct file_operations. That way you could have "relayfs-like" files in
any ram based file system that is being used.
Greg KH wrote:
> Hm, how about this idea for cutting about 500 more lines from the code:
>
> Why not drop the "fs" part of relayfs and just make the code a set of
> struct file_operations. That way you could have "relayfs-like" files in
> any ram based file system that is being used. Then, a
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:23:48 -0500, Karim Yaghmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +config RELAYFS_FS
> + tristate "Relayfs file system support"
> + ---help---
> + Relayfs is a high-speed data relay filesystem designed to provide
> + an efficient mechanism for tools and facilities
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:23:48AM -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> +static struct inode *
> +relayfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, int mode, dev_t dev)
> +{
> + struct inode * inode;
> +
> + inode = new_inode(sb);
> +
> + if (inode) {
> + inode->i_mode = mode;
> +
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:23:48AM -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
>
> I've reworked the relayfs patch extensively. The API and internals
> have been heavily purged. The patch is in fact almost HALF! its
> original size, loosing 90KB and going from 200KB to 110KB.
Hm, how about this idea for
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:23:48AM -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
I've reworked the relayfs patch extensively. The API and internals
have been heavily purged. The patch is in fact almost HALF! its
original size, loosing 90KB and going from 200KB to 110KB.
Hm, how about this idea for cutting
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:23:48AM -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
+static struct inode *
+relayfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, int mode, dev_t dev)
+{
+ struct inode * inode;
+
+ inode = new_inode(sb);
+
+ if (inode) {
+ inode-i_mode = mode;
+
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:23:48 -0500, Karim Yaghmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+config RELAYFS_FS
+ tristate Relayfs file system support
+ ---help---
+ Relayfs is a high-speed data relay filesystem designed to provide
+ an efficient mechanism for tools and facilities to relay
Greg KH wrote:
Hm, how about this idea for cutting about 500 more lines from the code:
Why not drop the fs part of relayfs and just make the code a set of
struct file_operations. That way you could have relayfs-like files in
any ram based file system that is being used. Then, a user could
Karim Yaghmour wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Hm, how about this idea for cutting about 500 more lines from the code:
Why not drop the fs part of relayfs and just make the code a set of
struct file_operations. That way you could have relayfs-like files in
any ram based file system that is being used.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:38:25PM -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Hm, how about this idea for cutting about 500 more lines from the code:
Why not drop the fs part of relayfs and just make the code a set of
struct file_operations. That way you could have relayfs-like files
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:28PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
Perhaps the logical solution is to implement debugfs in terms of relayfs?
What do you mean by this statement?
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:28PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
Perhaps the logical solution is to implement debugfs in terms of relayfs?
What do you mean by this statement?
I mean that if, as you say, debugfs is very similar to relayfs only more
restricted (i.e. a debugging
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 06:27:43PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:28PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
Perhaps the logical solution is to implement debugfs in terms of relayfs?
What do you mean by this statement?
I mean that if, as you say,
20 matches
Mail list logo
