From: Andrew R. <ae...@ks...> - 2005-07-19 14:51:36
|
Ok guys, Last night I looked at all my local changes that have not been committed to subversion and what really needs to be done to fix Rob and others' existing problems (as well as finish the documentation for Nima). Currently my changes include several changes towards making trustees use general 2.6 kernel semantics. There are several problems with the source code. For example, there is a single implementation of linked lists in the kernel, but trustees is still using its own. There are other similar problems where trustees is simply using old-style code instead of 2.6ish code. This needs to be fixed as it greatly simplifies the code. Also, there needs to be a overhaul on how trustees are stored in their data structures. There needs to be a quick way to find out if the trustees on one directory are the exact same as those on another directory. Also, there needs to be a -=very=- fast way to determine trustees for a directory. Try making a 600-deep directory structure someetime and touching some files in there, your system cpu usage will hit the top as trustees tries to process that big of a directory tree. Both of these changes will be necessary for Rob to see what he wants (and to fix several bugs on the SF.net page). Also, I am going to do something with the settrustees script. There may be some sort of settrustees backend which actually sends it, and a perl or python frontend which takes care of 99% of the logic. I hate writing parsing code in C and I would be able to integrate a lot of Nima's excellent work on his python scripts. In any case, I am certain that these changes will require many changes to the code, and changes mean lots of testing. Since the new release has come out, it took a while until it stabilized; and I still get the occasional oops report. (Although, it has been running stable as a rock on my machine). So what I am considering is just putting out a 3.0 with the one small subversion fix I have and last night I cleaned up the makefiles to work the -=correct=- way. (Was having some problem installing into the correct location on newer kernels). Also with this, I would make the patches to several kernels to allow compiling trustees into the kernel instead of just as a module. This would allow a stable release to be out there while these bigger changes are going in. What do you think? Thanks, Andy |
From: Nima T. <ni...@jc...> - 2005-07-21 08:40:18
|
Hey Andy, Good to hear from you again, thought you might have been abducted. If I can help in any coding/testing let me know, I'd be more than glad to help. Doing so will help me write better man pages too, so its all good. Nima Andrew Ruder wrote: > Ok guys, > > Last night I looked at all my local changes that have not been committed > to subversion and what really needs to be done to fix Rob and others' > existing problems (as well as finish the documentation for Nima). > > Currently my changes include several changes towards making trustees use > general 2.6 kernel semantics. There are several problems with the > source code. For example, there is a single implementation of linked > lists in the kernel, but trustees is still using its own. There are > other similar problems where trustees is simply using old-style code > instead of 2.6ish code. This needs to be fixed as it greatly simplifies > the code. > > Also, there needs to be a overhaul on how trustees are stored in their > data structures. There needs to be a quick way to find out if the > trustees on one directory are the exact same as those on another > directory. Also, there needs to be a -=very=- fast way to determine > trustees for a directory. Try making a 600-deep directory structure > someetime and touching some files in there, your system cpu usage will > hit the top as trustees tries to process that big of a directory tree. > Both of these changes will be necessary for Rob to see what he wants > (and to fix several bugs on the SF.net page). > > Also, I am going to do something with the settrustees script. There may > be some sort of settrustees backend which actually sends it, and a perl > or python frontend which takes care of 99% of the logic. I hate writing > parsing code in C and I would be able to integrate a lot of Nima's > excellent work on his python scripts. > > In any case, I am certain that these changes will require many changes > to the code, and changes mean lots of testing. Since the new release > has come out, it took a while until it stabilized; and I still get the > occasional oops report. (Although, it has been running stable as a rock > on my machine). > > So what I am considering is just putting out a 3.0 with the one small > subversion fix I have and last night I cleaned up the makefiles to work > the -=correct=- way. (Was having some problem installing into the > correct location on newer kernels). > > Also with this, I would make the patches to several kernels to allow > compiling trustees into the kernel instead of just as a module. > > This would allow a stable release to be out there while these bigger > changes are going in. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies > from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, > informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to > speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > _______________________________________________ > trustees-general mailing list > tru...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/trustees-general |
From: Andrew R. <ae...@ks...> - 2005-07-21 13:42:59
|
Nima Talebi wrote: > Hey Andy, > > Good to hear from you again, thought you might have been abducted. If I > can help in any coding/testing let me know, I'd be more than glad to > help. Doing so will help me write better man pages too, so its all good. I will definitely need the help, but even just providing man pages and testing is more than helpful ;) I will download all your e-mails to attempt to determine the answers to the few questions you did have on ordering and such. And no, I haven't been abducted, just busy ;) - Andy |