> This may seem like a lot, but several of these are already > requirements which most filesystems don't meet, and other are there > to tidy-up interfaces and make locking more straight forward. As a 2.5 thing it sounds like a very sensible path. It will also provide some of the operations groundwork needed for file systems that can only use NFS4 temporary handles - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- problems with reiserfs + nfs using 2.4.2-pre4 dek_ml
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs using 2.4.2-pre4 Neil Brown
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs using 2.4.2-pre4 dek_ml
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs using 2.4.2-... Neil Brown
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs using 2.... Alan Cox
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs usi... Neil Brown
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs... Chris Mason
- Re: problems with reiserfs +... Neil Brown
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs... Alan Cox
- Re: problems with reiserfs +... Neil Brown
- Re: problems with reiserfs +... dek_ml
- Re: problems with reiserfs +... Brian May
- Re: problems with reiserfs +... Chris Mason
- Re: problems with reiserfs + nfs... Roman Zippel
- Re: [NFS] Re: problems with ... Trond Myklebust
- Re: [NFS] Re: problems with ... Roman Zippel
- Re: [NFS] Re: problems with ... Trond Myklebust
- Re: [NFS] Re: problems with ... Roman Zippel
- Re: problems with reiserfs +... Neil Brown