Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-20 Thread Andreas Schwab
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On May 20 2007 11:14, Andreas Schwab wrote: >>Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote: > yeah, but how produziert? I *think*

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-20 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On May 20 2007 11:14, Andreas Schwab wrote: >Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote: yeah, but how produziert? >>> >>>I *think* it is the unbreakable space. >> >> \xa0 is 160, ak

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-20 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:39:33AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote: > >> yeah, but how produziert? > > > >I *think* it is the unbreakable space. > > \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-20 Thread Andreas Schwab
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote: >>> yeah, but how produziert? >> >>I *think* it is the unbreakable space. > > \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an inval

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-20 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote: >On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote: >> yeah, but how produziert? > >I *think* it is the unbreakable space. \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "se

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote: > yeah, but how produziert? I *think* it is the unbreakable space. Maybe you can enter it on your keyboard using AltGr-spacebar or something like this. If this is the case, it's possible that you got it right after a '>' during a comma

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread oliver pinter
yeah, but how produziert? On 5/19/07, oliver pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: with rm -i $'\xa0' command, have I removed the file - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread oliver pinter
with rm -i $'\xa0' command, have I removed the file - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread Willy Tarreau
[resending since I just noticed that Bern trimmed the CC list] On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:14:10PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > 500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r > >3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:14:10PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > 500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r > >3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d > > 520 - - 1 r o o t r o o

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread oliver pinter
other dir's ls see I zero \0 On 5/19/07, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > 500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r >3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d > 520 - - 1 r o o t

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > 500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r >3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d > 520 - - 1 r o o t r o o t >2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020 > 540

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread oliver pinter
On 5/19/07, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-06 12:41 > > the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte. Well, 0 byte files are nothing special, and the name: it might b

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-06 12:41 > > the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 > byte. Well, 0 byte files are nothing special, and the name: it might be a non-printable char? > touch ' ' will produce a

Re: it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread Michal Piotrowski
[Adding xfs-masters to CC] On 19/05/07, oliver pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: pancs:~/kernel# ll total 460 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-19 19:36 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root259 2007-05-06 13:14 lspc.sh -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 92184 2007-05-06 13:06 mypc.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9105

it seems at XFS bug?!

2007-05-19 Thread oliver pinter
pancs:~/kernel# ll total 460 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-19 19:36 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root259 2007-05-06 13:14 lspc.sh -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 92184 2007-05-06 13:06 mypc.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 91058 2007-05-06 12:42 pc.tct -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 93834 2007-05-06 12:58 pc.txt -rw