xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Olaf Weber <olaf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Unicode/UTF-8 support for XFS
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:06:08 -0700
Cc: Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tinguely@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5425C067.7080904@xxxxxxx>
References: <20140918195650.GI19952@xxxxxxx> <20140922222611.GZ4322@dastard> <5422C540.1060007@xxxxxxx> <20140924231024.GA4758@dastard> <54257D3F.70302@xxxxxxx> <20140926165605.GA25274@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140926170407.GB6012@samba2> <5425C067.7080904@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 09:37:11PM +0200, Olaf Weber wrote:
> My argument against "mount time case-insensitivity" and for "mkfs time
> case-insensitivity" is related to switching from the case-sensitive domain
> to the case-insensitive one.
> 
> For case-sensitive, from "README" to "readme" there are 64 different
> possible filenames.  Let's say you create 63 out of these 64. Now remount
> the filesystem case-insensitive, and try to open by the 64th version of
> "readme". It is not an exact match for any of the 63 candidate files, and a
> case-insensitive match to all 63 candidate files. Which of these 63 files
> should be opened, and why that one in particular?

Well, the point is not that we use the CI-capable hash all the time.  I
fully expect the current XFS behavior to remain the default for normal
systems forever.  I just want to make sure that the CI implementation
you chose can also allow mixed lookups if we desire.

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