xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Linux 2.4.17-xfs vs previous XFS versions and certain non-us charact

To: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.17-xfs vs previous XFS versions and certain non-us characters in filenames
From: Håkan Lindqvist <lindqvist@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 27 Jan 2002 18:27:40 +0100
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, utz lehmann <xfs@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3C543711.5030704@sgi.com>
References: <1012101803.1045.28.camel@steelnest> <1012102374.1045.35.camel@steelnest> <3 C536F44.1020301@sgi.com> <20020127152120.A1490@s2y4n2c.de> <20020127154745.A20990@wotan.suse.de> <1012143898.923.1.camel@steelnest> <3C54352B.60505@sgi.com> <1012151888.988.11.camel@steelnest> <3C543711.5030704@sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Well, I agree that this was benifical if you do not test with
non-us-ascii characters internally... But now that the problem has been
found I have this feeling that it is pointless to let even more people
find the same problem if it can be worked around that easily.
(Especially as I'm not 100% sure that this does not let you create files
that you will have problems with after the fix has been made.)

/Håkan

On Sun, 2002-01-27 at 18:21, Stephen Lord wrote:
> Hekan Lindqvist wrote:
> 
> >Thanks Stephen,
> >
> >I'm not sure about your policy about the CVS repository, but maybe you
> >ought to make this change in the CVS repository until the code has been
> >somewhat more audited?
> >
> >/Hekan
> >
> >
> 
> I suppose so, but we would never have found this internally, so putting 
> it out
> there was beneficial - the reason for doing this was because spinlock 
> debugging
> and xfs were totally incompatible and people kept turning it on, and 
> generating
> oopses we could not understand (since they did not always mention spinlock
> debugging was on....).
> 
> Ho hum, not been a good week for me breaking things....
> 
> Steve
> 
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>