Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?
From: Ulrich Drepper (drepper_at_redhat.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Previous message: Tim Waugh: "Re: [PATCH] Gigabit Ethernet support for forcedeth"
- In reply to: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Next in thread: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Reply: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:42:46 -0700 To: arjanv@redhat.com
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> you haven't been paying attention.... the current 2.6 kernels have a
> patch series that is fixing this for most filesystems already
Which reminds me: how can we safely determine whether this is
implemented for a local filesystem from userland? Unless we can do I
cannot change the value of SYMLOOP_MAX and people will not be able to
take advantage of the raised limit safely.
-- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ - 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/
- Previous message: Tim Waugh: "Re: [PATCH] Gigabit Ethernet support for forcedeth"
- In reply to: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Next in thread: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Reply: Arjan van de Ven: "Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
