[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs,
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ... |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:28:25 +0200 |
Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
...
> Here's the patch (same as proposed, but with a comment),
> followed by a patch to add a findutils test that exercises the bug.
...
I didn't include ChangeLog entries for the new find test case.
Here they are.
BTW, without the patch, find prints only the first line: "tmp\n".
2006-10-14 Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
Test for today's fts bug fix.
* find/testsuite/find.posix/xdev.exp: New file.
* find/testsuite/find.posix/xdev.xo: New file.
--- /dev/null 2006-09-30 18:47:07.772235750 +0200
+++ find/testsuite/find.posix/xdev.exp 2006-10-14 08:15:27.541426401 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+# tests for -xdev making fts use uninitialized memory
+exec rm -rf tmp
+exec mkdir -p tmp/x
+find_start p {tmp -xdev }
+exec rm -rf tmp
--- /dev/null 2006-09-30 18:47:07.772235750 +0200
+++ find/testsuite/find.posix/xdev.xo 2006-10-14 08:16:13.355072613 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+tmp
+tmp/x
- fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ..., Jim Meyering, 2006/10/11
- Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ..., Jim Meyering, 2006/10/12
- Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ..., Miklos Szeredi, 2006/10/12
- Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ..., Miklos Szeredi, 2006/10/13
- Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ..., Jim Meyering, 2006/10/13
- Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ..., Jim Meyering, 2006/10/14
- Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...,
Jim Meyering <=