On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 12:55, Andreas Theofilu wrote: > Hi to all, > > Since kernel 2.6.4 I'm not able to access files with a special character > in the file name, such as the german umlaute. Every attempt to access such > a file gives me the error: cannot stat file
I did this to you. I changed jfs's default character translation behavior. jfs stores the file names in ucs-16. It had used the character set defined by CONFIG_NLS_DEFAULT to determine how to translate to or from ucs-16. This can be overridden with the iocharset= mount option. After many complaints about characters that were being rejected by jfs, and after getting as much feedback as I was able to obtain, I changed the default behavior so that no translation is done. Each byte of the file name is now stored in the lower byte of the ucs-16 character. (This is equivalent to iocharset=iso8859-1, which is the default value of CONFIG_NLS_DEFAULT.) Unfortunately, existing files with a non-zero high byte in a character are no longer accessible. jfs should have printed a syslog message recommending that the file system be mounted with iocharset=utf8 to access the file. > I'm using several partitions with JFS file system and had never seen such > a strange behavior before. The relevant kernel settings are at the bottom > of the mail. > > I already unmounted the partition and run fsck on it (fsck.jfs -f > /dev/hda8), but it told me that everything is ok and I'm still not able to > access this files. Also a reboot of the machine didn't change anything. I > booted 2.6.3 again and renamed the files in question (no more special > characters in the file name). Now I can access these files with 2.6.4 > also. Another alternative would have been to mount the filesystem with "-o iocharset=<charset>" where <charset> is the value of CONFIG_NLS_DEFAULT. To make that behavior permanent, you can add the iocharset= flag to /etc/fstab. > Although I'm a programmer, I'm not a kernel hacker and don't know where > to start looking for this problem. Could anybody give me a hint where to > start looking? I'm sorry this caused you problems. I knew making this change would cause some confusion, but I think in the long run, jfs is better off with a more predictable default behavior. -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion