[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC v2] Unicode/UTF-8 support for XFS

To: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Unicode/UTF-8 support for XFS
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:41:45 -0500
Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tinguely@xxxxxxx, olaf@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87lhpbhfgg.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20140918195650.GI19952@xxxxxxx> <87lhpbhfgg.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey Andi,

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 07:55:59AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > Strings are normalized using a trie that stores the relevant
> > information.  The trie itself is about 250kB in size, and lives in a
> > separate module.
> So 250kB bloat -- and what does this fix exactly?

We're trying to address the size issue by only loading the module when
it's needed, but yeah it's big.  Open to suggestions on how best to deal
with that.  I understand the sticker shock.
> Someone putting random ligatures into their file names and expecting
> the file to be the same as before. Can't they just not do that?

The ligature example that Olaf gave might seem kind of trivial, but for
other characters and languages could it be more significant?

As far as telling the customer "don't do that", my guess is that they
would just go elsewhere.  There are several other options for
filesystems that support unicode.


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