xfstests: Fix some file permission.
PATCH 1/1 xfstests: Fix some file permission.
I notice that some of the test script do not have execute permission. To be consistent I changed the permissions to be 755. Can someone verify that this is valid.
Thanks.
---
0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) mode change 100644 => 100755 215 mode change 100644 => 100755 220 mode change 100644 => 100755 221 mode change 100644 => 100755 222 mode change 100644 => 100755 224 mode change 100644 => 100755 225 mode change 100644 => 100755 227 mode change 100644 => 100755 229 mode change 100644 => 100755 236 mode change 100644 => 100755 237 mode change 100644 => 100755 239 mode change 100644 => 100755 242 mode change 100644 => 100755 244
215 +0 -0
220 +0 -0
221 +0 -0
222 +0 -0
224 +0 -0
225 +0 -0
227 +0 -0
229 +0 -0
236 +0 -0
237 +0 -0
239 +0 -0
242 +0 -0
244 +0 -0
Signature · 12 lines
1.6.0.2 -- =============================================== Alain Renaud - Cluster File System Engineer [email protected] - SGI =============================================== _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 5 lines · Alain Renaud
I notice that some of the test script do not have execute permission. To be consistent I changed the permissions to be 755. Can someone verify that this is valid.
Thanks.
This looks good to me but I'd like a second opinion, to make sure there's no reason any of these should be non-executable.
-Alex
Quoted 2 lines
Signed-off-by Alain Renaud <[email protected]>---
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 10 lines · Alex Elder
Quoted 5 lines · Alain Renaud
I notice that some of the test script do not have execute permission. To be consistent I changed the permissions to be 755. Can someone verify that this is valid.
Thanks.
This looks good to me but I'd like a second opinion, to make sure there's no reason any of these should be non-executable.
I don't think it matters. Consistency is good, though, and we've taken patches like this in the past.
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 7 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected] _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 6 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 3 lines
This looks good to me but I'd like a second opinion, to make sure there's no reason any of these should be non-executable.
I don't think it matters. Consistency is good, though, and we've taken patches like this in the past.
Yeah. Btw, I'm not sure git-am can apply the mode changes from a patch, in the worst case you might have to do the chmod calls manually.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 11 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 6 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 3 lines
This looks good to me but I'd like a second opinion, to make sure there's no reason any of these should be non-executable.
I don't think it matters. Consistency is good, though, and we've taken patches like this in the past.
Yeah. Btw, I'm not sure git-am can apply the mode changes from a patch, in the worst case you might have to do the chmod calls manually.
OK. I'll figure out how to apply it. Thanks. -Alex
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 11 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 6 lines · Dave Chinner
Quoted 3 lines
This looks good to me but I'd like a second opinion, to make sure there's no reason any of these should be non-executable.
I don't think it matters. Consistency is good, though, and we've taken patches like this in the past.
Yeah. Btw, I'm not sure git-am can apply the mode changes from a patch, in the worst case you might have to do the chmod calls manually.
Just a follow-up... "git am" *does* do the right thing with a git-generated patch that describes changes to modes only. (But "patch" and "quilt" of course just think it's garbage.)
I've committed this change to the xfstests-dev tree on kernel.org and will push it out to oss next time I update that tree (most likely later this week).
-Alex
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs