On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 04:10:09PM +0200, Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso wrote:
> From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> In follow_link, we call the underlying method with the same nameidata we got -
> it will then call path_release() and then dput()/mntput() on hppfs dentrie
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 04:09:51PM +0200, Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso wrote:
> static ssize_t read_proc(struct file *file, char *buf, ssize_t count,
>loff_t *ppos, int is_user)
> {
> @@ -228,17 +237,21 @@ static ssize_t read_proc(struct file *fi
> if (read == NULL
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 04:10:07PM +0200, Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso wrote:
> +static int hppfs_d_revalidate(struct dentry * dentry, struct nameidata * nd)
> +{
> + int (*d_revalidate)(struct dentry *, struct nameidata *);
> + struct dentry *proc_dentry;
> +
> + proc_dentry = HPPFS_
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 02:00:35PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Well, on this point I guess I'll need more help.
[snip]
Ugh. What you need to do is
* lock underlying directory (procfs one)
* call lookup_one_len()
* unlock
and be done with that. And yes, ->d_revalidate() f
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 02:00:35PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Friday 26 August 2005 23:48, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:04:43PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > And beyond that what? I cannot even think what's the rest *. And
> > > "obvious" doesn't hold with me.
> Al, while a
I have a system build that happens under UML. The build is a series of bash
scripts that compile and run a heavily modified Linux From Scratch system.
The previous version was working fine under 2.6.11 UML in -tt mode (with one
patch applied, the one to fix the permissions on block devices in
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:01:11PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Hmm, this kind of thing is exactly the one for which mempool's were created -
> have you looked at whether using them (which can be used for atomic purposes)
> would be better?
Yeah, that would be worth looking into.
> I've not looke
I received the following error when compiling UML for kernel 2.6.10. I
am unable to trace the redefinition. Has anyone seen this error?
arch/um/include/skas_ptrace.h:10: error: redefinition of `struct
ptrace_faultinfo'
arch/um/include/skas_ptrace.h:15: error: redefinition of `struct
ptrace_ldt'
> There's none, but vanilla 2.6.10 has included UML support; I
> wouldn't call
> that trustworthy (especially from the "security" point of view).
>
> The amount of patches which went in for UML before 2.6.11 was
> released was so
> big, and they were so heavy, I never got around to releasing
On Tuesday 20 September 2005 09:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi:
> I simply apply the patch, and run new round ltp on TT mode, and found
> most part of problem is disappear, that\'s a real good news.
> the failure list is:
> fcntl23
As I specified in a separate mail, that's a hos
On Monday 19 September 2005 22:08, Majid Salame wrote:
> Hi all,
> Could anyone point me to a stable linux-2.6.10 UML patch ?
There's none, but vanilla 2.6.10 has included UML support; I wouldn't call
that trustworthy (especially from the "security" point of view).
The amount of patches which we
On Thursday 15 September 2005 19:05, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Host is running 2.6.13.1
> I tried mode=skas0 but it seems to always default to TT.
The correct switch is skas0, mode=skas0 doesn't exist (maybe to fix). Just
verified looking at vmlinux --help output.
> Or has this not been merged in m
On Sunday 18 September 2005 00:45, Jeff Dike wrote:
> I've spent some time working on the ubd and AIO problems that have cropped
> up recently. Patches are attached - a critical look at them would be
> appreciated.
>
> I'm going to start with a problem that hasn't exactly cropped up, and move
> on
13 matches
Mail list logo
