[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 02.12.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:14:34AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Not really. Anything that modifies directories holds both ->i_sem and
> > ->i_zombie,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 02.12.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:14:34AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Not really. Anything that modifies directories holds both -i_sem and
-i_zombie, lookups hold
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:14:34AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Not really. Anything that modifies directories holds both ->i_sem and
> ->i_zombie, lookups hold ->i_sem and emptiness checks (i.e. victim in
> rmdir and overwriting
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:24:02AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> This is actually a feature. The directory does not get truncated.
>
> Arguably directories could be truncated when objects towards the end
> are removed; I believe UFS
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:24:02AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
This is actually a feature. The directory does not get truncated.
Arguably directories could be truncated when objects towards the end
are removed; I believe UFS under
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:14:34AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Not really. Anything that modifies directories holds both -i_sem and
-i_zombie, lookups hold -i_sem and emptiness checks (i.e. victim in
rmdir and overwriting rename)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Steven Van Acker wrote:
> It this is a known thing, please don't kill me...
> Hmm, gonna try to follow the REPORTING-BUGS file here...
It is not a bug. Directory entries increase in size as allocation
units are added to handle directory entries. Once allocated, they
are not
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Steven Van Acker wrote:
It this is a known thing, please don't kill me...
Hmm, gonna try to follow the REPORTING-BUGS file here...
It is not a bug. Directory entries increase in size as allocation
units are added to handle directory entries. Once allocated, they
are not
You write:
> Hmm, gonna try to follow the REPORTING-BUGS file here...
>
> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
>
> directory size increases when adding 0-size files,
> but doesn't decrease when removing them.
It may or may not be considered a bug, but in any case it has been like
It this is a known thing, please don't kill me...
Hmm, gonna try to follow the REPORTING-BUGS file here...
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
directory size increases when adding 0-size files,
but doesn't decrease when removing them.
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
It this is a known thing, please don't kill me...
Hmm, gonna try to follow the REPORTING-BUGS file here...
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
directory size increases when adding 0-size files,
but doesn't decrease when removing them.
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
You write:
Hmm, gonna try to follow the REPORTING-BUGS file here...
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
directory size increases when adding 0-size files,
but doesn't decrease when removing them.
It may or may not be considered a bug, but in any case it has been like
this
12 matches
Mail list logo
