On Tuesday 15 October 2002 20:29, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> It looks like the ext3 change in fix-acl.diff was to revert a change
> that I never had; it's not in the 2.4 0.8.50 patches, and it wasn't in
> my patches. So I'm not sure what's going on there.
Utter confusion has arisen. Can you put the current versions of your patches
at a well known location (web/ftp/cvs), so we can more easily check and patch
against them? That would be great.
The fix-acl patch is on top of either 0.8.50 or 8.0.51. The x_init_acl() dirty
the inode themselves (at least they should). Initially the x_dirty_inode()
calls had been moved below the x_init_acl() calls, but this is no longer
necessary, and so the patch moved them up again.
BUG: I have overlooked the dummy implementation of ext[23]_init_acl(). Please
find attached a corrected version.
> The ext2 change in fix-acl.diff looks *wrong*. It removes a call to
> mark_inode_dirty which was there in the original, and which is
> necessary.
The original ext2_new_inode with no xattr/acl patches calls mark_inode_dirty
before unlock_super. This call is not removed in 0.8.50 or 0.8.51, but a
second call is added below ext2_init_acl. Since ext2_init_acl takes care of
dirtying the inode itself this second call is no longer needed (I hope!)
--Andreas.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:57 EST