[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: heads up: rename fixed
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
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |