[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Unicode/UTF-8 support for XFS
From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:29:58 +0200
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tinguely@xxxxxxx, olaf@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140922184145.GH4482@xxxxxxx>
References: <20140918195650.GI19952@xxxxxxx> <87lhpbhfgg.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140922184145.GH4482@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
> > So 250kB bloat -- and what does this fix exactly?
> We're trying to address the size issue by only loading the module when

I'm not sure this is really addressing it.

> it's needed, but yeah it's big.  Open to suggestions on how best to deal
> with that.  I understand the sticker shock.

I don't even understand why you need the whole table.

You want to not compare some special symbols, and a few other symbols
are equivalent to others.  But most symbols are only identical to themselves.

Couldn't you have a much smaller table that only expresses
the exceptions?

> 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.

They could put some code into their user app that generates
an unique representation.


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