On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
> > Al Viro writes:
> > >   Folks, give it a try - just keep decent backups. Similar code will
> > > have to go into UFS in 2.4 and that (ext2) variant may be of interest for
> > > 2.4.<late>/2.5.<early> timeframe.
> > 
> > Haven't tested it yet, but just reading over the patch - in ext2_lookup():
> > 
> >         if (dentry->d_name.len > UFS_MAXNAMLEN)
> >                 return ERR_PTR(-ENAMETOOLONG)
> > 
> > should probably be changed back to:
> > 
> >         if (dentry->d_name.len > EXT2_NAME_LEN)
> >                 return ERR_PTR(-ENAMETOOLONG)
> 
> Grrr... It shows the ancestry - it's a ported UFS patch. Thanks for spotting,
> I'll fix that.

Aha. And there was that UFS_LINK_MAX thing. Fixed. OK, new version is on
the same site, URL being ftp://ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/ext2-patch-8.gz

        Changes: got rid of the remnants of UFS ancestry (EXT2 limits are
used; not that it mattered much, but...), fixed the conversion in
ext2_empty_dir() (cpu_to_le32() instead of le32_to_cpu()).
                                                        Cheers,
                                                                Al

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to