xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Backup ACLs

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Backup ACLs
From: thomas graichen <list-linux.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:16:30 +0200
Distribution: local
Organization: spoiled dot org
References: <EB0AF92C5F6B6B45A3EC7A2608347EC005EB7E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <10107301020.ZM246528@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: thomas graichen <tgr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: thomas graichen <tgr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.7-pre8-xfs (i686))
"Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Now that I think back, I remember Thomas came across this
> problem on ppc a while back also, I don't think it was ever
> resolved.  What you've started doing above is probably the
> simplest way to go - I'd suggest keep doing that.  You'll
> need to find the exact point in the code where the kernel
> is deciding to return EFAULT ... from a quick peek, I see
> there's one case in getname() - perhaps thats it.

> Once you find the offending line, you'll need to understand
> the conditional statement just prior to EFAULT being set;
> eg. use a few more printks before the condition to see what
> the values of the variables involved are and which part of
> it is evaluating to true (and then, hopefully, why).

yes - i was the onwhich had this problem once - i also tried
the printk's but ended up at very strange things ... maybe i
should try again ...

t

-- 
thomas graichen <tgr@xxxxxxxxxxx> ... perfection is reached, not
when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no
longer anything to take away. --- antoine de saint-exupery


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>