Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+1\/3\]\s+Implement\s+generic\s+freeze\s+feature\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+1\/3\]\s+Implement\s+generic\s+freeze\s+feature\s*$/: 51 ]

Total 51 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:55:15 -0500; Not a problem with your patch exactly, but I was just wondering; you check here whether the sb returned from freeze_bdev is an ERR_PTR (as does lock_fs()) - but, freeze_bdev never returns an error, d; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00039.html (10,928 bytes)
2. [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:52:45 +0900; The ioctls for the generic freeze feature are below. o Freeze the filesystem int ioctl(int fd, int FIFREEZE, arg) fd: The file descriptor of the mountpoint FIFREEZE: request code for the freeze arg:; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00054.html (17,037 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:10:26 -0400; Why not just freeze_mutex? Note that we still have duplication with the bd_mount_sem. I think you should look into getting rid of it and instead do a check of the freeze_count under proper freeze_mut; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00058.html (11,845 bytes)
4. /O error (score: 1): Author: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:58:08 +0900; Eric Sandeen: +static int ioctl_freeze(struct file *filp) +{ + struct super_block *sb = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_sb; + + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) + return -EPERM; + + /* If filesystem doe; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00067.html (10,844 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:11:06 +0900; inode_init_once(&ei->vfs_inode); + /* Initialize mutex for freeze. */ + mutex_init(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); Why not just freeze_mutex? The Linux kernel has already had the name of "freezer" in the; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00068.html (11,706 bytes)
6. REVIEW: Improve caching in libxfs (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:55:15 -0500; xfs_in; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00547.html (10,748 bytes)
7. progs to latest kernel interfaces and implementation (score: 1): Author: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:52:45 +0900; ze_sem; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00563.html (16,857 bytes)
8. Remove XFS specific ioctl interfaces for freeze feature (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:10:26 -0400; d. For; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00566.html (11,665 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] log reasons for mount-time sunit/swidth rejection (score: 1): Author: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:58:08 +0900; fter y; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00576.html (10,661 bytes)
10. th rejection (score: 1): Author: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:11:06 +0900; em doe; /archives/xfs/2008-09/msg00577.html (11,523 bytes)
11. [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:28:19 +0900; The ioctls for the generic freeze feature are below. o Freeze the filesystem int ioctl(int fd, int FIFREEZE, arg) fd: The file descriptor of the mountpoint FIFREEZE: request code for the freeze arg:; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00296.html (16,520 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:58:41 -0700; FIFREEZE is 119, but a few lines above we have Should we be using 120 and 121 here? "freeze" is not an adequate description of what this protects. I think it's only the modification and testing of bd; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00340.html (10,861 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:09:58 -0600; No, because 'X' != 0x12... The 'X' is used because this ioctl is compatible with the XFS implementation of this feature. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsy; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00347.html (9,371 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:14:58 -0400; Now you have a reference counter of freezes which actually is pretty sensible, but also needs some documentation. What I don't understand here at all is why you do the get_super/drop_super in the alr; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00352.html (11,465 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:36:56 +0900; +#define FIFREEZE _IOWR('X', 119, int) /* Freeze */ +#define FITHAW _IOWR('X', 120, int) /* Thaw */ FIFREEZE is 119, but a few lines above we have Should we be using 120 and 121 here? As Andreas said; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00434.html (11,810 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:37:28 +0900; Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 09:28:19PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote: + down(&bdev->bd_freeze_sem); + bdev->bd_freeze_count++; + if (bdev->bd_freeze_count > 1) { + sb = get_super(bd; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00435.html (12,620 bytes)
17. [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:28:19 +0900; The ioctls for the generic freeze feature are below. o Freeze the filesystem int ioctl(int fd, int FIFREEZE, arg) fd: The file descriptor of the mountpoint FIFREEZE: request code for the freeze arg:; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00744.html (16,520 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:58:41 -0700; FIFREEZE is 119, but a few lines above we have Should we be using 120 and 121 here? "freeze" is not an adequate description of what this protects. I think it's only the modification and testing of bd; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00788.html (10,861 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:09:58 -0600; No, because 'X' != 0x12... The 'X' is used because this ioctl is compatible with the XFS implementation of this feature. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsy; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00795.html (9,371 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:14:58 -0400; Now you have a reference counter of freezes which actually is pretty sensible, but also needs some documentation. What I don't understand here at all is why you do the get_super/drop_super in the alr; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00800.html (11,465 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]