similar to: [PATCH 0/2] UFS1/2 support series

From: Raphael S. Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> Change since v1: * Fix bug on dentry structure (thank you specification; btw, sarcasm), and consequently a bug on ufs_readdir. * Add readlink support (applied tests for symlinks whose destionation path were stored in blk pointers and the file itself). * Several improvements. Wrote the documentation below. I think it would be good to

From: Raphael S. Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> It's already loading modules successfully, booting Linux, and both UFS version 1 and 2 seem to be working correctly. Signed-off-by: Raphael S. Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> --- core/fs/ufs/bmap.c | 202 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ core/fs/ufs/ufs.c | 404 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's already loading modules successfully, and both UFS version 1 and 2 seems to be working correctly. Special thanks to Paulo Alcantara and Matt Fleming for being always ready to help me and give feedback. Signed-off-by: Raphael S.Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> --- core/fs/ufs/bmap.c | 202 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ core/fs/ufs/ufs.c | 404

It's needed to enumerate both UFS1/2 since they have different magic numbers and super block offsets. Besides, UFS2 can be installed in the 0-64k range like BTRFS, whereas UFS1 can't. Signed-off-by: Raphael S.Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> --- extlinux/main.c | 71 +++++++++--- extlinux/ufs.h | 26 ++++ extlinux/ufs_fs.h | 307

It's needed to enumerate both UFS1/2 since they have different magic numbers and super block offsets. Besides, UFS2 can be installed in the 0-64k range like BTRFS, whereas UFS1 can't. UFS2 has no cow feature unlike BTRFS. Signed-off-by: Raphael S.Carvalho <raphael.scarv at gmail.com> --- extlinux/main.c | 79 ++++++++++--- extlinux/ufs.h | 26 ++++

On 05/29/2014 07:36 AM, Raphael S Carvalho wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: >> On 05/29/2014 07:20 AM, Raphael S.Carvalho wrote: >>> +static int ufs_readlink(struct inode *inode, char *buf) >>> +{ >>> + ufs_debug("ufs_readlink\n"); >>> + return inode->size; >>> +}

> On May 25, 2014 3:39 AM, "Geert Stappers" <stappers at stappers.nl> wrote: > > > > > > While going throug old posts found: > > > > Op 2013-08-31 om 17:01 schreef Raphael S.Carvalho: > > > Calc the size of ldlinux.sys from ldlinux.bin, and check if it exceeds > the limit. > > > ldlinux.sys must fit between the bootsector and

On 05/29/2014 08:29 AM, Raphael S Carvalho wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: >> On 05/29/2014 07:36 AM, Raphael S Carvalho wrote: >>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: >>>> On 05/29/2014 07:20 AM, Raphael S.Carvalho wrote: >>>>> +static int

I am building a tool to identify the file that has a specific LBA. The approach I am using is to search through each inode from number 2 up. This approach works well with UFS1 file systems as then preinitialize all the inodes. However, UFS2 does lazy inode initialization so there are always some that are basically garbage. I have not found any relaiable way to determine from the

Merge installation of ldlinux.c32 from ext2_fat_install_file, btrfs_install_file and xfs_install_file into one function ext_install_ldlinux_c32 Signed-off-by: Nicolas Cornu <nicolac76 at yahoo.fr> --- extlinux/main.c | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------- 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) diff --git a/extlinux/main.c b/extlinux/main.c index

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:14:36AM +0100, Geert Stappers via Syslinux wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:05:26AM +0200, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > diff U3 syslinux-6.03/extlinux/main.c syslinux-6.03_typo/extlinux/main.c > > --- syslinux-6.03/extlinux/main.c Mon Oct 06 16:27:44 2014 > > +++ syslinux-6.03_typo/extlinux/main.c Fri Nov 13 02:29:56 2015 > > patch seen >

This set of patches add some support for sector size >512. Currently it fixes extlinux, MBR for GPT and ext partitions. Other code is unaffected. This set of patches has been tested on a read Dell machine running a beta firmware.

My server just literally was brought to it's knees with this message spewing on the console: swap_pager: indefinite wait buffer: bufobj: 0, blkno: 1203133, size: 4096 (blkno and size were varying) Some searching says that this is or was a bug. Has this been fixed yet? If so, what should I upgrade to? I'm currently running 6.3 Michael Grant

On 05/29/2014 07:20 AM, Raphael S.Carvalho wrote: > +static int ufs_readlink(struct inode *inode, char *buf) > +{ > + ufs_debug("ufs_readlink\n"); > + return inode->size; > +} Something missing here? -hpa

On Fri, 12 Jul, at 08:31:27PM, Raphael S.Carvalho wrote: > @@ -575,7 +594,7 @@ bail: > return 1; > } > > -/* btrfs has to install the ldlinux.sys in the first 64K blank area, which > +/* btrfs/ufs2 has to install the ldlinux.sys in the first 64K blank area, which > is not managered by btrfs tree, so actually this is not installed as files. > since the cow

diff U3 syslinux-6.03/extlinux/main.c syslinux-6.03_typo/extlinux/main.c --- syslinux-6.03/extlinux/main.c Mon Oct 06 16:27:44 2014 +++ syslinux-6.03_typo/extlinux/main.c Fri Nov 13 02:29:56 2015 @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ /* * extlinux.c * - * Install the syslinux boot block on an fat, ntfs, ext2/3/4, btrfs, xfs, + * Install the syslinux boot block on a fat, ntfs, ext2/3/4, btrfs, xfs, * and ufs1/2

Any progress here? Does anyone know if this will be fixed in 7.1 latest, or should we start looking for different backup solution (in this case I would suggest to remove dump from the source tree - having a backup tool that doesn't work is worse than having none). After upgrading we basically cannot backup our servers. Shouldn't this issue be on

Title: HOWTO-FreeBSD-on-XCP Author: John D. "Trix" Farrar Date: 2012-02-09 * The Challenge - ParaVirtualized FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE under XCP 1.1.0 The idea here is to create a PV FreeBSD VM under Xen Cloud Platform (XCP) without starting with an HVM first. The documentation I''''ve been able to find on-line is at least a year old and is mostly written for Xen (under

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: > On 05/29/2014 07:36 AM, Raphael S Carvalho wrote: >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: >>> On 05/29/2014 07:20 AM, Raphael S.Carvalho wrote: >>>> +static int ufs_readlink(struct inode *inode, char *buf) >>>> +{ >>>>

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: > On 05/29/2014 08:29 AM, Raphael S Carvalho wrote: >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: >>> On 05/29/2014 07:36 AM, Raphael S Carvalho wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> wrote: