On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> In article <3CC427F4.12C40426@fnal.gov>,
> Dan Yocum <yocum@fnal.gov> wrote:
> >I know it's been discussed to death, but I am making a formal request to you
> >to include XFS in the main kernel. We (The Sloan Digital Sky Survey) and
> >many, many other groups here at Fermilab would be very happy to have this in
> >the main tree.
>
> Has XFS been proven to be completely stable and POSIX complient in its
> behaviour? The reason I am asking is that XFS seems to be a fairly common
> factor for segfault bugreports in dpkg. The problems are rare enough (and
> never reproducable) so I can't prove this but it does leave me wondering.
Is there a test suite that checks POSIX (or better yet, SUS v3)
compliance of a file system? That might prove useful, although I'm well
aware it'd probably require some brains (and kernel modules) to check
consistency guarantees. But apart from that, things like "truncate to
zero length does not change the mtime of a file" (fixed in ReiserFS only
some weeks ago) might get caught that way.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 22:00:33 EST