Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?
From: Arjan van de Ven (arjanv_at_redhat.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Previous message: Guillaume Thouvenin: "[Patch] fbdev.c: fix a warning "unused variable""
- In reply to: Tim Connors: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Reply: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Tim Connors <tconnors+linuxkernel1091156355@astro.swin.edu.au> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:16:10 +0200
> Obviously, nothing came about it.
you haven't been paying attention.... the current 2.6 kernels have a
patch series that is fixing this for most filesystems already with the
last few others in progress.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
- Previous message: Guillaume Thouvenin: "[Patch] fbdev.c: fix a warning "unused variable""
- In reply to: Tim Connors: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Reply: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
