Re: heads up: rename fixed

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 08:50:35PM -0500, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
 > > > > As opposed to ffs? What's your point?
 > > > 
 > > > I think he meant that it's most likely to be used in a production
 > > > environment.
 > > 
 > > And ffs isn't? I still don't get the point.
 > 
 > Didn't you just say that ffs is already fixed?

Yes, I did. It sounded like he was scolding me for wasting time on ffs
when tmpfs is critical, which doesn't make sense.

 > If so, then it seems to me like fixing tmpfs might be a better next
 > step than fixing lfs (unless there's something about lfs that makes
 > it particular easy to fix).

as I wrote in the original mail, fixing ffs also fixes lfs, because
they (mostly) share ufs_rename.

I guess the conclusion I should draw from these responses is that more
than one person misunderstood that, ergo it was my fault for being
unclear. :-/

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost