On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 07:22:39PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > Fixed in vfs.git#ufs-fixes; see commit
> > 77e9ce327d9b607cd6e57c0f4524a654dc59c4b1
> > there. Not sure if it's worth splitting..
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> osstest service owner writes ("[linux-linus bisection] complete
> build-i386-pvops"):
> > branch xen-unstable
> > xenbranch xen-unstable
> > job build-i386-pvops
> > testid kernel-build
> >
> > Tree: linux
> > git://git.kernel.org/pu
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:52:36PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> Using /proc/xen/xenbus can cause deadlocks on the atomic file position
> mutex since this file should behave like a character device and not a
> regular file. This is easiest to achive by making it a symlink to the
> existing /dev/xen
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:46:08PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Looks good to me. BTW also ext4 (with BIGALLOC feature) and OCFS2 can have
> block allocation unit (called cluster) larger than page size. However the
> block size of both filesystems is still <= page size. So at least ext4
> handles fun
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:31:16PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:57:15AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Joy... Folks, is anybody actively maintaining fs/ufs these days?
> >
> > Looking into the changelog there wasn't anyone seriously looking into U
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:57:15AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Joy... Folks, is anybody actively maintaining fs/ufs these days?
>
> Looking into the changelog there wasn't anyone seriously looking into UFS
> for at least 5-6 years... Fabian did some cleanups recently but they were
> mostly cosmeti
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 07:50:18PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Basically, we have
> i_mutex: file size changes, contents-affecting syscalls. Per-inode.
> truncate_mutex: block pointers changes. Per-inode.
> s_lock: block and inode bitmaps changes. Per-filesystem.
>
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 06:27:01PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> You're asking to remove lock_ufs() in allocation and replace it by
> truncate_mutex. I guess you're talking about doing that on current rc
> (without s_lock restored).
>
> I tried a quick patch on rc trying to convert lock_ufs()/
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:01:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> So we need
> * per-page exclusion for reallocation time (normal page locks are
> doing that)
> * per-fs exclusion for block and fragment allocations (->s_lock?)
> * per-fs exclusion for inode all
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:57:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 21:15:30 +0200 Fabian Frederick wrote:
>
> > This reverts commit 9ef7db7f38d0
> > ("ufs: fix deadlocks introduced by sb mutex merge")
> > That patch tried to solve
> > Commit 0244756edc4b98c
> > ("ufs: sb
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:17:36PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > ... while some of us consider that as pointless posturing and will refuse
> > to merge such exports regardless.
>
> Can you elaborate why, for those maintainers not aware of such positions?
*shrug*
Either one states that all
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:56:01AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>
> Current documentation over use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> only acknowledges functions which are "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". In practice these days
> though
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:45:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The symptoms are that `umount' fails with EBUSY,
[lizf: Backported to 3.4:
- remove the changes to follow_link() as it doesn't call set_root()]
looks dubious - I don't have -stable in front of me, but set_root() in
follow_li
13 matches
Mail list logo
