On 03/05/2010 14:34, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Milan Jurik wrote:
Which would be very good to have, of course.
This is what I have been told several times already. Are you going to make it
happen?
Joerg, really - it is *you* who can make it happen as long as you are
willing to
On 05/ 3/10 09:00 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Jonathan Adams [mailto:jonathan.ad...@oracle.com]
As long as the object you're trying to reverse lookup happens to be a
directory (and you happen to have the ability to open an inode by its
inode
number) then you can recu
On 05/ 3/10 08:49 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
But so far I've had the assumption (numerously supported) that file inodes
don't currently have any reference to their parent(s). In fact, one person
on zfs-discuss (Peter Jeremy) said a file could be linked to 32767 times,
but usually it'll be a s
On 05/ 3/10 08:23 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: opensolaris-code-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
code-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Garrett D'Amore
Its worse than that -- unless the reference is in kernel memory, there
is no reference on disk that goes backwards from in
On 05/ 4/10 12:39 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
Its worse than that -- unless the reference is in kernel memory, there
is no reference on disk that goes backwards from inode to path name.
find (see below) is about the only way that is guaranteed to work -- and
of course that only finds inod
If you compile the unmodified sources under usr/src/cmd/sh/ you get 262 warnings
for missing prototypes (even if you _disable_ warnings from Sun Studio) and if
you did fix this, you would see about 1000 new warnings caused by incorrect
parameters when calling functions. In addition, the ON versi
Hi Joerg,
Joerg Schilling píše v út 04. 05. 2010 v 12:22 +0200:
> Milan Jurik wrote:
>
> > Joerg Schilling pí??e v po 03. 05. 2010 v 16:55 +0200:
> > > Milan Jurik wrote:
> > >
> > > > > You may be able to agree with me on better thandards than the ones I
> > > > > currently
> > > > > use but
On 03/05/2010 14:34, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Milan Jurik wrote:
Which would be very good to have, of course.
This is what I have been told several times already. Are you going to make it
happen?
Joerg, really - it is *you* who can make it happen as long as you are
willing to be a team
"Richard L. Hamilton" wrote:
> Attached is the test program I used; if you can think of some way to detect
> accesses of bytes beyond the permitted ones _within_ the last word, feel free
> to change it.
I'll look at it. If you like to check for overshooting, you would need to
create non-null te
Milan Jurik wrote:
> Joerg Schilling pí??e v po 03. 05. 2010 v 16:55 +0200:
> > Milan Jurik wrote:
> >
> > > > You may be able to agree with me on better thandards than the ones I
> > > > currently
> > > > use but you will not succeed to let me agree on inferior standards.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>Its worse than that -- unless the reference is in kernel memory, there
>is no reference on disk that goes backwards from inode to path name.
>find (see below) is about the only way that is guaranteed to work -- and
>of course that only finds inodes that actually *have* an active
>pathname.
11 matches
Mail list logo
