Re: (reiserfs) Re: any chance we could dump the 64k subdirectory limit before 2.4 ships?
Pavel Machek wrote: > > So run with -noleaf, or compile it with -noleaf as the default. Those of > > us who use AFS are used to that anyway. > > Notice: they want that to go into 2.4.X. Recompiling all distros all > there is *not* option. But returning nlink==1 is option, and I like > it. (You should not need -noleaf if AFS returns nlink==1 correctly...) -noleaf slows it down noticably on local disks. I've just checked the source for findutils-4.1, and nlink==1 (or nlink==0) will work just fine though the logic doesn't explicitly check for that. (It's fine provided you have
Re: (reiserfs) Re: any chance we could dump the 64k subdirectory limit before 2.4 ships?
Hi! > +- > | Well, find might get pretty confused, too. > +--->8 > > So run with -noleaf, or compile it with -noleaf as the default. Those of > us who use AFS are used to that anyway. Notice: they want that to go into 2.4.X. Recompiling all distros all there is *not* option. But returning nlink==1 is option, and I like it. (You should not need -noleaf if AFS returns nlink==1 correctly...) Pavel -- The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+
