xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.21-git10/11: files getting truncated on xfs? or maybe an nlink p

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-git10/11: files getting truncated on xfs? or maybe an nlink problem?
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 13:27:43 -0700
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, michal.k.k.piotrowski@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705142215130.9570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070509231643.GM85884050@xxxxxxx> <4642598E.3000607@xxxxxxxx> <20070510000119.GO85884050@xxxxxxx> <46426194.3040403@xxxxxxxx> <20070510004918.GS85884050@xxxxxxx> <46426D31.8070000@xxxxxxxx> <20070510012609.GU85884050@xxxxxxx> <46433049.4020003@xxxxxxxx> <20070510153832.GQ11115@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705121320240.9570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070512124641.GZ11115@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0705142215130.9570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 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?

Nobody.  But doing a readdir, sorting the results and visiting the files
in that order does mean you'll visit them in alphabetical order.  Hence
"explicitly visits".

    J


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