| To: | Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.21-git10/11: files getting truncated on xfs? or maybe an nlink problem? |
| From: | Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 14 May 2007 22:16:00 +0200 (MEST) |
| Cc: | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, michal.k.k.piotrowski@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070512124641.GZ11115@waste.org> |
| References: | <20070509231643.GM85884050@sgi.com> <4642598E.3000607@goop.org> <20070510000119.GO85884050@sgi.com> <46426194.3040403@goop.org> <20070510004918.GS85884050@sgi.com> <46426D31.8070000@goop.org> <20070510012609.GU85884050@sgi.com> <46433049.4020003@goop.org> <20070510153832.GQ11115@waste.org> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705121320240.9570@yvahk01.tjqt.qr> <20070512124641.GZ11115@waste.org> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On May 12 2007 07:46, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>
>> You should not assume alphabetical order. Filesystems may be free to
>> reorder things and return them (1) randomly like in a hash (2) by
>> creation time during readdir().
>
>There is no assumption. Mercurial explicitly visits files in
>alphabetical order for the above commands.
But who says that
for i in {a..z}; do ## {..} is a bash3 extension
touch $i;
done;
actually makes readdir() return them in the same order?
Jan
--
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/5][TAKE2] fallocate() on s390 - glibc wrapper, Amit K. Arora |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.21-git10/11: files getting truncated on xfs? or maybe an nlink problem?, Jeremy Fitzhardinge |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.21-git10/11: files getting truncated on xfs? or maybe an nlink problem?, Matt Mackall |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.21-git10/11: files getting truncated on xfs? or maybe an nlink problem?, Jeremy Fitzhardinge |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |