Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Things\s+todo\s+before\s+we\s+announce\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Things\s+todo\s+before\s+we\s+announce\s*$/: 36 ]

Total 36 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:48:42 -0600; Not really... but I think a better idea would be to have /usr/xfs/ put all of our binaries in there, with links in /sbin. Once xfs becomes a standard distribution then we can put stuff directly in bl; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00015.html (9,515 bytes)
2. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:05:54 -0500; well, mkfs is a bit special - /usr might be a separate filesystem and might not be mounted at the time mkfs is needed. perhaps the same is true for the other xfs tools too, i'm not sure. could implem; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00016.html (9,709 bytes)
3. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: Dan.Koren@xxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:07:34 -0800; Symbolic links in /sbin to files residing on a different file system are potentially dangerous ... /sbin is the directory of last resort and everything in it should be usable with only / mounted. thx; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00017.html (10,705 bytes)
4. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:25:19 -0600; The point I was getting at: We shouldn't pollute the system with stuff people can't distinctly remove; not util xfs it more accecpted. A lot of people are going to try xfs initially but not really do; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00018.html (10,828 bytes)
5. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:29:47 -0600; Ohh one other thing... do we have a version/revision output for mkfs that would be able identify if somebody is running the wrong version of mkfs.xfs?; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00019.html (11,141 bytes)
6. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: Klaus Strebel <stb@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:00:29 +0200; -- Klaus Strebel stb@xxxxxxxxx EIGNER + PARTNER AG - The Engineering Warehouse Company - <http://www.ep-ag.com> --; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00020.html (10,951 bytes)
7. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:19:18 +0200; Please put it in /sbin and make it easily overrideable from the Makefile with a PREFIX= variable. -Andi P.S.: I compiled up a XFS tree from CVS last night. It created and mounted fine, but hung the m; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00023.html (10,617 bytes)
8. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:21:30 +0200; I think just doing a rpm/dpkg is preferable over /usr/xfs It makes it easy enough to blow stuff away. You can also make the rpm relocateable if you worry about the place (but /sbin is a fine default); /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00024.html (9,941 bytes)
9. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 06:47:11 -0600; Hmm, we seem to have 'announced' already - I wonder who put this thread onto the oss list. Anyways, which options did you use to build XFS? There was a hard hang in the case where CONFIG_PAGE_BUF_ME; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00025.html (9,522 bytes)
10. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:57:38 +0200; Configuration: CONFIG_XFS_FS=m CONFIG_PAGE_BUF=y CONFIG_PAGE_BUF_LOCKING=y CONFIG_AVL=y CONFIG_PAGE_BUF_META=y CONFIG_AVL=y CONFIG_XFS_ARCH_NATIVE=y I think I compiled with your change: ak@bert:~/lsr; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00026.html (11,043 bytes)
11. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: lord@xxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:11:54 -0600; OK, looks like the same hang. Turning off CONFIG_PAGE_BUF_META should make it go away. I need to check with Russell, it looks like the CVS tree is not getting updated, there is an internal tree whic; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00027.html (10,081 bytes)
12. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:38:46 +0200; Even with BUF_META off I got another hang, again while copying a kernel tree to it Symlinks seem to be still flakey (they also cannot be removed). Looks like file_lock leaked and the NMI oopser kille; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00030.html (10,801 bytes)
13. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: lord@xxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:46:47 -0600; xfs_vnodeops.c': File exists xfs_uuid.c': File exists @ 0xc012ab7a Oh there is nothing like people using your code..... If you can make this happen again could you send the back trace from the panic; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00031.html (10,463 bytes)
14. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:51:32 +0200; Oh yes, sorry, I overlooked that. Seems KDB should turn off the watchdog while it runs. I'll check if I can reproduce it. -Andi; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00032.html (11,210 bytes)
15. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:14:49 +0200; I did let several cp -a and rm -rf race on the same kernel tree, which caused this interesting crash (seems to be a different one): -Andi cp: sgi/linux/ipc/util.h: Invalid argument cp: sgi/linux/ipc/; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00034.html (12,723 bytes)
16. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:46:31 -0600; Well the cat is out of the bag :-) Have to hand it to people who actually got the file system up and running without any documentation. The pushing of the cvs tree is not "entirely" automated yet. I'; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00035.html (10,697 bytes)
17. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Christopher C. Petro" <petro@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:40:08 -0800; At Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:05:54 -0500, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The point I was getting at: We shouldn't pollute the system with stuff people can't distinctly remove; not u; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00057.html (10,135 bytes)
18. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:56:11 -0600; There is going to be ai lot of revisions between now and "stable" Keeping things "sandboxed" for now will keep things cleaner. Things will change as "stable" becomes a reality.; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00060.html (10,700 bytes)
19. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:48:42 -0600; Not really... but I think a better idea would be to have /usr/xfs/ put all of our binaries in there, with links in /sbin. Once xfs becomes a standard distribution then we can put stuff directly in bl; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00082.html (9,515 bytes)
20. Re: Things todo before we announce (score: 1): Author: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:05:54 -0500; well, mkfs is a bit special - /usr might be a separate filesystem and might not be mounted at the time mkfs is needed. perhaps the same is true for the other xfs tools too, i'm not sure. could implem; /archives/xfs/2000-03/msg00083.html (9,709 bytes)

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