On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 04:51:09PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> expect 0 symlink ${name256} ${n0}
> expect 0 unlink ${n0}
>
> Test 6 is failing with ENAMETOOLONG
> Test 7 is failing (correctly) with ENOENT because test 6 failed.
>
> So there's only one failure here, and that is that that we're rejecting
> ${name256} as too long. I think that getname() is doing this. Seems sane
> to me to disallow symlinking to pathnames that can't be constructed,
> even if POSIX apparently allows it.
i'd rather expect this to be the component validation in xfs_symlink.
It's superflous and not done by any other fiesystem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m.,
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
ntfs-3g-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
