[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Fix some file permission.

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: Fix some file permission.
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:13:51 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alain Renaud <arenaud@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20101010080502.GA6674@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4CAE483F.1020608@xxxxxxx> <1286660111.5392.6.camel@doink> <20101010015723.GM4681@dastard> <20101010080502.GA6674@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: aelder@xxxxxxx
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 04:05 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:57:23PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > This looks good to me but I'd like a second opinion,
> > > to make sure there's no reason any of these should
> > > be non-executable.
> > 
> > I don't think it matters. Consistency is good, though, and we've
> > taken patches like this in the past.
> Yeah.  Btw, I'm not sure git-am can apply the mode changes from a patch,
> in the worst case you might have to do the chmod calls manually.

Just a follow-up...  "git am" *does* do the right thing with
a git-generated patch that describes changes to modes only.
(But "patch" and "quilt" of course just think it's garbage.)

I've committed this change to the xfstests-dev tree on kernel.org
and will push it out to oss next time I update that tree (most
likely later this week).


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