On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah, but that's a much bigger issue. Not something we can or want to fix
> for 2.4.x.
No arguments. UFS will have to live with its private copy for a while
(truncate there may have to zero out more than 4Kb of data).
> > * "make sure that ->buffers is there and map the buffers in given
> > range" is too fscking common and deserves a function of its own.
> Yeah, maybe. It's just that every single case has different semantics
> inside the loop. So it would basically boil down to either macros or to
> passign around function pointers..
I'm not sure, but anyway, that's a separate story. Let's avoid doing too
many things simultaneously... Right now we really need to get the truncate()
mess settled down on ext2, then we will be able to reproduce the whole set
of fixes on other block filesystems. The sooner ext2 will get stable - the
BTW, folks - do forced fsck before testing new kernels. These days it's
a must-do. There had been a lot of chances to screw fs, so testing new
variants on that may be interesting, but hardly useful. Oh, and do it
on the _old_ kernels. Just to be sure that you have relatively clean setup.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:24 EST