From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: BTW: 2.4.19-patches-to-come?
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 09:22:07 +0400
Message-ID: <20020507092207.A6678@namesys.com>
References: <3CD72AB1.6010607@netscape.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-10275-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CD72AB1.6010607@netscape.net>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Manuel Krause <manuelkrause@netscape.net>
Cc: reiserfs-list <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>

Hello!

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:15:29AM +0200, Manuel Krause wrote:

> 1.) the deleted/truncated/completed-files-on-mount at least
>     printed in the kernel logs, at best with the real filename

Huh??

>     -- as afterwards they are not retrievable --

Sure. Files are deleted already. How do you plan to retrieve deleted files?
(not using backups, that's it).

>     That's a security reason -- whoever can trigger a crash
>     with various methods (I know the admin should take care
>     against this case... but on my home sytem I'd like to know
>     that info, too) but to get back the file from backups in
>     case... who knows it before a
>     crash... ? Am I missing something?

This is unclear to me. You mean to crash a system to get a copy of deleted file,
or to crash a system to delete a file? Both things sound very unlikely.

> 2.) a disk/drive/partition distinction in reiserfs related
>     messages -- Oleg, you promised it to get real and best
>     would be a real "patch" !

Yes, I remember.

> 3.) a hint on how to turn on/off data-journaling for "some"
>     of our existing reiserfs partitions if it exists at all
>     for now and why it could be needed in some cases?!.

Data journaling is available only in form of a separate patch from Chris for
now.

> 4.) a hint why there is iicache code in the latest
>     speedup-compound-patch (so that the latest iicache patch
>     would not apply)

Hm? What do you mean by latest speedup-compound-patch? I know Chris does not
believe iicache should be good to use, because similar functionality (with
less overhead) can be achieved by pagecache.

Bye,
    Oleg