Quoting Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:32:18 +0300 "Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> Plese don't top-post. It makes replying to you rather awkward.
>
> > could you, plz, check patch sent by Eric above in this thread.
> >
> > I have tried it on my
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:32:18 +0300 "Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Plese don't top-post. It makes replying to you rather awkward.
> could you, plz, check patch sent by Eric above in this thread.
>
> I have tried it on my test node and it works for module you have
> provided. The p
could you, plz, check patch sent by Eric above in this thread.
I have tried it on my test node and it works for module you have
provided. The problem exists without it.
Regards,
Den
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Ultimately to implement /proc perfectly we need an imp
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Ultimately to implement /proc perfectly we need an implementation
of d_revalidate because files and directories can be removed behind
the back of the VFS, and d_revalidate is the only way we can let
the VFS know that this has happened.
So until we get a proper test for k
On Dec 7, 2007 11:25 PM, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ultimately to implement /proc perfectly we need an implementation
> of d_revalidate because files and directories can be removed behind
> the back of the VFS, and d_revalidate is the only way we can let
> the VFS know that th
Ultimately to implement /proc perfectly we need an implementation
of d_revalidate because files and directories can be removed behind
the back of the VFS, and d_revalidate is the only way we can let
the VFS know that this has happened.
Unfortunately the linux VFS can not cope with anything in the
6 matches
Mail list logo
