Hello,
In 2.0.39, the function put_last_free() in fs/file_table.c is defined,
but no longer get used.
Should it be removed?
thanks
--- fs/file_table.c.orig 1994-10-21 07:39:36.000000000 +0800
+++ fs/file_table.c 2004-01-26 03:10:38.000000000 +0800
@@ -52,20 +52,6 @@
prev->f_next = next;
}
-/*
- * Insert a file structure at the end of the list of available ones.
- */
-static inline void put_last_free(struct file *file)
-{
- struct file *next, *prev;
-
- next = first_file;
- file->f_next = next;
- prev = next->f_prev;
- next->f_prev = file;
- file->f_prev = prev;
- prev->f_next = file;
-}
/*
* Allocate a new memory page for file structures and
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 03:23:15AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In 2.0.39, the function put_last_free() in fs/file_table.c is defined,
> but no longer get used.
> Should it be removed?
I might consider this for 2.0.41, not for 2.0.40. Indeed it doesn't
seem to be used, but it might be used in some external file system.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
On Sun, Jan 25 2004, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 03:23:15AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In 2.0.39, the function put_last_free() in fs/file_table.c is defined,
> > but no longer get used.
> > Should it be removed?
>
> I might consider this for 2.0.41, not for 2.0.40. Indeed it doesn't
> seem to be used, but it might be used in some external file system.
The function was static.
--
Jens Axboe
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:43:48AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25 2004, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 03:23:15AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > In 2.0.39, the function put_last_free() in fs/file_table.c is defined,
> > > but no longer get used.
> > > Should it be removed?
> >
> > I might consider this for 2.0.41, not for 2.0.40. Indeed it doesn't
> > seem to be used, but it might be used in some external file system.
>
> The function was static.
Ohhh, failed to spot that. Bummer, since I just uploaded 2.0.40-rc8.
Then again, with the quality my -rc's have been of lately, there will
probably be a 2.0.40-rc9 anyway. Sigh.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Hey David,
I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no
problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem
running. Great work!
Markus
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:10:56PM +0200, Markus H?stbacka wrote:
> Hey David,
> I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no
> problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem
> running. Great work!
Most of the compile-time warning I got was from using a newer binutils,
but I'll try to fix all warnings (that are fixable without causing bugs)
in 2.0.41.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> Markus H?stbacka wrote:
>
> >Hey David,
> >I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no
> >problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem
> >running. Great work!
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> Hello all 2.0 hackers,
There aren't a lot, I suspect you can count us using one hand
nowadays...
> Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it
> be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
> other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to
> gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
> on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember
correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to
generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc.
It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some
degree that no new bugs are introduced.
My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy
up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Markus H?stbacka wrote:
>Hey David,
>I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no
>problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem
>running. Great work!
>
> Markus
>
>
Hello all 2.0 hackers,
Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it
be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to
gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
Coywolf
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> ...
> > Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it
> > be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
> > other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to
> > gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
> > on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
>
> Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember
> correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to
> generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc.
> It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
>
only the module-code? :)
> It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some
> degree that no new bugs are introduced.
>
That would probably be impossible to do without introducing any bugs..
> My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy
> up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
>
Sounds great, a bit amazing that 2.0 is alive again :)
Markus
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:13:36AM +0200, Markus H?stbacka wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> > ...
> > > Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it
> > > be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
> > > other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to
> > > gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
> > > on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
> >
> > Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember
> > correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to
> > generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc.
> > It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
> >
> only the module-code? :)
Well, I do remember that I did spend a few weeks getting the 2.0-tree to
compile with gcc-3.2, and most problems arose when dealing with the
module-code. I think I gave up there.
> > It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some
> > degree that no new bugs are introduced.
> >
> That would probably be impossible to do without introducing any bugs..
Mmmm.
> > My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy
> > up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
> >
> Sounds great, a bit amazing that 2.0 is alive again :)
Oh, it's not been dead, as much as laying dormant.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Btw - Are you going to announce the release of 2.0.40 (whenever it's
coming) or just put it on kernel.org?
Markus
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:37:37AM +0200, Markus H?stbacka wrote:
> Btw - Are you going to announce the release of 2.0.40 (whenever it's
> coming) or just put it on kernel.org?
I will announce it. It won't have any differences from 2.0.40-rc8
though (unless someone uncovers a flaw in -rc8 of course, which would
cause me to release an -rc9.)
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
--- linux-2.0.40/fs/exec.c 2004-02-27 11:48:20.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-2.0.40-cy/fs/exec.c 2004-03-03 21:14:28.000000000 +0800
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@
/*
* Fill the binprm structure from the inode.
- * Check permissions, then read the first 512 bytes
+ * Check permissions, then read the first 128 bytes
*/
int prepare_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
{
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:38:09PM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> David Weinehall wrote:
>
> >My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy
> >up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
> >
> >
> >Regards: David Weinehall
>
> Hello, David
>
> In the comment of prepare_binprm() in fs/exec.c, 512 bytes should be 128
> bytes.
Thanks.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/