On 2015-04-27 11:04:51 -0500, David Wright wrote: > Exactly. Saying "But this matters in a POSIX-compliant filesystem" > is very different from "But with the current solution". To me, > a "current solution" is an concrete implementation, not a POSIX > specification; the latter is a target.
I really meant the concrete ext3 implementation, but in the restricted example concerning the last entry (since at that time, the discussion was on this point). > In response to my tests, you wrote "You haven't demonstrated > anything", and not "You haven't tested compliance". No, I was right here. When I wrote "You haven't demonstrated anything", it was on your test with "ls -lU", and I showed you that one could have the same behavior on "ls -lU" with an implementation that follows the spec. As I've said: "What actually needs to be done is a real test using readdir.", which you did *later*. > > I agree for an end user, but see the context. > > Um, I'm here in debian-user, not ext3-us...@redhat.com or > e...@vger.kernel.org or linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org where I suppose > they chat about such things. Discussions on the implementation also matter for the end user, not just for developers, since the implementation has an influence on the performance, and the performance was at the start of this thread. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150428001047.gb14...@xvii.vinc17.org
