headers
Andrea Arcangeli | 1 Oct 2003 15:24
Picon

Re: [PATCH] Mask out O_LARGEFILE in F_GETFL

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 07:25:08AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> This fixes a test in the LSB test suite. 
> 
> The kernel sets O_LARGEFILE implicitely on 64bit hosts.
> According to POSIX it should not appear on F_GETFL then. Just mask it out
> always. 
> 
> This will also mask it out for explicitely set O_LARGEFILE, but that seems
> to be ok.
> 
> Any flames for this please to the POSIX comittee, not to me.
> 
> -Andi
> 
> diff -X ../../KDIFX -burpN linux-2.4.23-pre5/fs/fcntl.c linux-merge/fs/fcntl.c
> --- linux-2.4.23-pre5/fs/fcntl.c	2002-11-30 00:37:11.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-merge/fs/fcntl.c	2002-11-30 05:22:20.000000000 +0100
>  <at>  <at>  -270,7 +270,7  <at>  <at>  static long do_fcntl(unsigned int fd, un
>  			set_close_on_exec(fd, arg&1);
>  			break;
>  		case F_GETFL:
> -			err = filp->f_flags;
> +			err = filp->f_flags & ~O_LARGEFILE;
>  			break;
>  		case F_SETFL:
>  			lock_kernel();
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Roman Zippel | 2 Oct 2003 10:37

[ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver

Hi,

This is a rather big update to the HFS+ driver. It includes now also an 
updated HFS driver. Both drivers use now almost the same btree code and 
the general structure is very similiar, so one day it will be possible to 
merge both drivers. The HFS driver got a major cleanup and a lot of broken 
options were removed, most notably if you want to continue using netatalk 
with this driver, you have to fix netatalk first.

The HFS+ driver has a number of improvements and fixes:
- blocks are now preallocated.
- allocation file is now in the page cache too
- better extent caching
- btrees are now able to grow arbitrarily
- allocation block size can now be larger than a page
- actual fs block size is adjusted to avoid alignment problems
- cdrom session/partition support (note that this is a crutch and has 
  problems)

This is basically the version I'd liked to get merged into 2.6 (minus lots 
of ifdefs and some debug prints). You can find the driver at
http://www.ardistech.com/hfsplus/

bye, Roman

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 39 comments |
headers
Dave O | 2 Oct 2003 20:02
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver


Hi Roman

 I get this when building your driver (20030930) against 2.6.0-test6:

*** Warning: "get_gendisk" [fs/hfsplus/hfsplus.ko] undefined!
*** Warning: "get_gendisk" [fs/hfs/hfs.ko] undefined!

any idea how to resolve this?

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Roman Zippel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is a rather big update to the HFS+ driver. It includes now also an
> updated HFS driver. Both drivers use now almost the same btree code and
> the general structure is very similiar, so one day it will be possible to
> merge both drivers. The HFS driver got a major cleanup and a lot of broken
> options were removed, most notably if you want to continue using netatalk
> with this driver, you have to fix netatalk first.
>
> The HFS+ driver has a number of improvements and fixes:
> - blocks are now preallocated.
> - allocation file is now in the page cache too
> - better extent caching
> - btrees are now able to grow arbitrarily
> - allocation block size can now be larger than a page
> - actual fs block size is adjusted to avoid alignment problems
> - cdrom session/partition support (note that this is a crutch and has
>   problems)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
viro | 2 Oct 2003 20:06
Picon
Picon

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:37:32AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> The HFS+ driver has a number of improvements and fixes:
> - blocks are now preallocated.
> - allocation file is now in the page cache too
> - better extent caching
> - btrees are now able to grow arbitrarily
> - allocation block size can now be larger than a page
> - actual fs block size is adjusted to avoid alignment problems
> - cdrom session/partition support (note that this is a crutch and has 
>   problems)
> 
> This is basically the version I'd liked to get merged into 2.6 (minus lots 
> of ifdefs and some debug prints). You can find the driver at
> http://www.ardistech.com/hfsplus/

What the devil are you doing with get_gendisk() in there?  Neither 2.4
nor 2.6 should be messing with it.
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Roman Zippel | 2 Oct 2003 20:24
Picon

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver

Hi,

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 viro=+pPCBgu9SkPzIGdyhVEDUDl5KyyQGfY2kSSpQ9I8OhVaa/9Udqfwiw <at> public.gmane.org wrote:

> What the devil are you doing with get_gendisk() in there?  Neither 2.4
> nor 2.6 should be messing with it.

In 2.6 it's only a debugging check and will be removed. In 2.4 it's 
currently needed to get the correct size. The backup volume sector is in 
the second last (512 byte) sector, but bd_inode->i_size is truncated to 
BLOCK_SIZE.

bye, Roman

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Roman Zippel | 2 Oct 2003 20:30
Picon

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver

Hi,

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Dave O wrote:

>  I get this when building your driver (20030930) against 2.6.0-test6:
> 
> *** Warning: "get_gendisk" [fs/hfsplus/hfsplus.ko] undefined!
> *** Warning: "get_gendisk" [fs/hfs/hfs.ko] undefined!
> 
> any idea how to resolve this?

You can simply remove the code block from get_gendisk to put_disk in 
hfsplus/wrapper.c and hfs/mdb.c.

bye, Roman

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Brad Boyer | 2 Oct 2003 20:52
Picon

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:06:45PM +0100,
viro=+pPCBgu9SkPzIGdyhVEDUDl5KyyQGfY2kSSpQ9I8OhVaa/9Udqfwiw <at> public.gmane.org wrote:
> What the devil are you doing with get_gendisk() in there?  Neither 2.4
> nor 2.6 should be messing with it.

Since this topic has come up, I'd like to ask about something that
apparently only affects HFS/HFS+. For some reason, Apple decided
that a Mac style CD-ROM should be a partitioned device. However,
the Linux kernel is quite insistent that a CD-ROM is not able to
be partitioned. Because of this, there's a hack to manually read
a partition map and find the correct part of the block device.

Would it be possible to have a way to use the gendisk and partitioning
code that is already in the kernel for regular disks to read these
CDs? It also might be useful for the loopback device.

Just as an example of worst case, the main A/UX install CD had
not only an HFS partition, but multiple UFS partitions. If you
really want a view of the extent of Apple hackery, take a look
at arch/m68k/mac and groan.  :)

	Brad Boyer
	flar=POGeQm5F+FGB+jHODAdFcQ <at> public.gmane.org

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Dave O | 2 Oct 2003 21:00
Picon

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver


On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Dave O wrote:
>
> >  I get this when building your driver (20030930) against 2.6.0-test6:
> >
> > *** Warning: "get_gendisk" [fs/hfsplus/hfsplus.ko] undefined!
> > *** Warning: "get_gendisk" [fs/hfs/hfs.ko] undefined!
> >
> > any idea how to resolve this?
>
> You can simply remove the code block from get_gendisk to put_disk in
> hfsplus/wrapper.c and hfs/mdb.c.
>

This works, however du(1) seems to get the block size wrong:

meatloop:/cdrom# ls -l
total 393244
-rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  341952833 Sep 22 17:24 else.zip
-rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  450701627 Sep 22 20:07 outlook.zip
-rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  607534655 Sep 22 17:26 quick1.zip
-rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  431279243 Sep 22 17:26 quick2.zip
-rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  605501959 Sep 22 17:27 quick3.zip
-rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  403836898 Sep 22 17:28 quick4.zip
-rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  380636073 Sep 22 17:28 quick5.zip

meatloop:/cdrom# du -sh
385M    .
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Mike Fedyk | 3 Oct 2003 02:26

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:00:25PM -0500, Dave O wrote:
> This works, however du(1) seems to get the block size wrong:
> 
> meatloop:/cdrom# ls -l
> total 393244
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  341952833 Sep 22 17:24 else.zip
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  450701627 Sep 22 20:07 outlook.zip
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  607534655 Sep 22 17:26 quick1.zip
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  431279243 Sep 22 17:26 quick2.zip
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  605501959 Sep 22 17:27 quick3.zip
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  403836898 Sep 22 17:28 quick4.zip
> -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  380636073 Sep 22 17:28 quick5.zip
> 
> meatloop:/cdrom# du -sh
> 385M    .

Are you sure?  I haven't done the math, but you are comparing base 1000 to
base 1024 numbers.  Try comparing:

du -sh .
ls -lh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo <at> vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Dave O | 3 Oct 2003 04:43
Picon

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new HFS(+) driver


On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:00:25PM -0500, Dave O wrote:
> > This works, however du(1) seems to get the block size wrong:
> >
> > meatloop:/cdrom# ls -l
> > total 393244
> > -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  341952833 Sep 22 17:24 else.zip
> > -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  450701627 Sep 22 20:07 outlook.zip
> > -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  607534655 Sep 22 17:26 quick1.zip
> > -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  431279243 Sep 22 17:26 quick2.zip
> > -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  605501959 Sep 22 17:27 quick3.zip
> > -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  403836898 Sep 22 17:28 quick4.zip
> > -rwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout  380636073 Sep 22 17:28 quick5.zip
> >
> > meatloop:/cdrom# du -sh
> > 385M    .
>
> Are you sure?  I haven't done the math, but you are comparing base 1000 to
> base 1024 numbers.  Try comparing:
>
> du -sh .
> ls -lh
>

There's not that much to be sure about.  A single file there (else.zip) is
over 300 megs itself, and the total of all the files is about 3 gigs

-------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane