Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Implement\s+immutable\/append\-only\s+flags\s+in\s+XFS\s+\#3\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Implement\s+immutable\/append\-only\s+flags\s+in\s+XFS\s+\#3\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:34:43 -0800; [third revision of my patch, only change is to update it for current 2.4.21 CVS] Over time there has been many requests for ext2 file flags such as immutable, append-only, sync, noatime be implement; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00167.html (14,315 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:55:27 +1000; ... Your explanation makes sense. xfsrestore, at the moment, will restore extended attributes (EAs) after all of the data for the file has been restored. This is important for DMF, where it would be; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00170.html (9,202 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:00:24 -0500 (CDT); We're very interested in this patch, we just have not had the time to fully vet it & get it applied to the tree. If folks on the list who are interested in this sort of thing could give it a whirl, a; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00171.html (8,716 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:07:24 -0800; I still also want to know if these bits should be inherited by new children of a directory with these bits set. ext2 does this for all of them, IMO it only makes sense for SYNC. your welcome. -- Etha; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00172.html (9,591 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:11:09 -0800; it didn't look too difficult to me to change, but I am hesitent to really make the attempt since there are things about xfsdump/xfsrestore for which I don't know (such as ordering issues you describe; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00173.html (10,609 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:47:40 +0200; inherited sync is very useful. iirc it was introduced because some mail servers assume everything is a BSD with UFS and rename is always synchronous, otherwise they have potential crash recovery issu; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00256.html (9,847 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:16:31 -0800; yes. sync on a directory otherwise doesn't do anything AFAICT. note that 2.6 introduces a new flag specifically for making a directory syncronous, i don't know the details of how it works, or what it; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00283.html (12,007 bytes)
8. [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:34:43 -0800; [third revision of my patch, only change is to update it for current 2.4.21 CVS] Over time there has been many requests for ext2 file flags such as immutable, append-only, sync, noatime be implement; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00499.html (14,315 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:55:27 +1000; ... Your explanation makes sense. xfsrestore, at the moment, will restore extended attributes (EAs) after all of the data for the file has been restored. This is important for DMF, where it would be; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00502.html (9,202 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:00:24 -0500 (CDT); We're very interested in this patch, we just have not had the time to fully vet it & get it applied to the tree. If folks on the list who are interested in this sort of thing could give it a whirl, a; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00503.html (8,716 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:07:24 -0800; I still also want to know if these bits should be inherited by new children of a directory with these bits set. ext2 does this for all of them, IMO it only makes sense for SYNC. your welcome. -- Etha; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00504.html (9,591 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:11:09 -0800; it didn't look too difficult to me to change, but I am hesitent to really make the attempt since there are things about xfsdump/xfsrestore for which I don't know (such as ordering issues you describe; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00505.html (10,609 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:47:40 +0200; inherited sync is very useful. iirc it was introduced because some mail servers assume everything is a BSD with UFS and rename is always synchronous, otherwise they have potential crash recovery issu; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00588.html (9,847 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #3 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:16:31 -0800; yes. sync on a directory otherwise doesn't do anything AFAICT. note that 2.6 introduces a new flag specifically for making a directory syncronous, i don't know the details of how it works, or what it; /archives/xfs/2003-07/msg00615.html (12,007 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]