Le 19.01.2006 23:00, Vitaly Fertman a écrit :
On Thursday 19 January 2006 22:53, Bruce Guenter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:34:49PM +0300, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix
the broken mount options. please try it.
It does indeed fix the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:34:49PM +0300, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix
the broken mount options. please try it.
It does indeed fix the problem. What other mount options would have
been affected by this problem? In what version of the kernel
On Thursday 19 January 2006 22:53, Bruce Guenter wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:34:49PM +0300, Vitaly Fertman wrote:
thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix
the broken mount options. please try it.
It does indeed fix the problem. What other mount options would have
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 21:58, Hans Reiser wrote:
The result is not expected, Vitaly please look into it.
Hans
Bruce Guenter wrote:
Hi.
I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been
unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a
Hi.
I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been
unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a
significant difference in the amount of disk space used.
Here's what I've done:
1. Create a fresh 1GB filesystem (in a file on loopback), using
The result is not expected, Vitaly please look into it.
Hans
Bruce Guenter wrote:
Hi.
I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been
unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a
significant difference in the amount of disk space used.
Here's
