Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[2\.4\.18\-14SGI_XFS_1\.2a1\]\s+acl\s+problems\s+\(was\:\s+root\s+xfs\s+filesystem\s+executable\s+bits\s+bug\s+comeback\?\)\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [2.4.18-14SGI_XFS_1.2a1] acl problems (was: root xfs filesystem executable bits bug comeback?) (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:30:26 +0200
ed to inform you of the announcement today, 12TH OCTOBER. 2002, of winners of the
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00266.html (14,566 bytes)

2. Re: [2.4.18-14SGI_XFS_1.2a1] acl problems (was: root xfs filesystem executable bits bug comeback?) (score: 1)
Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:43:16 -0800
ught I'd let you know I had no problem with the installation that I did'nt have with Redhat 8.0. Does Debian HPPA have XFS? Thanks James
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00271.html (15,698 bytes)

3. Re: [2.4.18-14SGI_XFS_1.2a1] acl problems (was: root xfs filesystem executable bits bug comeback?) (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Oct 2002 11:52:20 -0500
ex field, metadata is cached in an address space, so the size of a filesystem is governed by the amount of space which can fit in one of
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00300.html (17,368 bytes)

4. comeback? (score: 1)
Author: wig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:30:26 +0200
XFS have 64 bit inodes (as it normally has AFAIK on IR
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01045.html (14,566 bytes)

5. (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:43:16 -0800
parts and is not restricted to root XFS-partitions (Eric, sorry for my bad wording about "root-mounted" partitions in the previous mail). It is also difficult to trigge
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01050.html (15,698 bytes)

6. FL is incorrectly marked busy (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Oct 2002 11:52:20 -0500
ix xfs_alloc_put_freelist marks the blocks it gets as "busy". However, this function is used in two different ways: 1. xfs_alloc_fix_freelist calls xfs_alloc_put_freelist to add new bloc
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01079.html (17,368 bytes)

7. Re: [2.4.18-14SGI_XFS_1.2a1] acl problems (was: root xfs filesystem executable bits bug comeback?) (score: 1)
Author: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:30:26 +0200
The bug seems to be in the acl parts and is not restricted to root XFS-partitions (Eric, sorry for my bad wording about "root-mounted" partitions in the previous mail). It is also difficult to trigge
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01824.html (14,827 bytes)

8. Re: [2.4.18-14SGI_XFS_1.2a1] acl problems (was: root xfs filesystem executable bits bug comeback?) (score: 1)
Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:43:16 -0800
yes this is exceedingly annoying since acl aware ls shows such files with a + on the permissions, which is erroneous. you can see the acls with the following: getfattr -m . file you will see a system
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01829.html (15,956 bytes)

9. Re: [2.4.18-14SGI_XFS_1.2a1] acl problems (was: root xfs filesystem executable bits bug comeback?) (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Oct 2002 11:52:20 -0500
Ok, here's a patch that seems to take care of all the problems... I am not an acl-guru by -any- means though, so I'd appreciate any testing & sanity-checking. I'll ask the sgi acl-gurus to look at it
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01858.html (17,671 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu