https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196405 --- Comment #20 from michelbach94@xxxxxxxxx --- (In reply to Theodore Tso from comment #18) > > More accurately, we've gone ten years before people connected the dots. > This > > time, the original bug report was about 'ls'. > > Can you give me a pointer to the original bug report? I'm curious how > things were misbehaving. > [...] > The problem withdrawing the feature is that it would break a lot of > users who want to have more than 65,000 subdirectories. Ext4 has been > out there for a long time, and while it's true that many people don't > create directory trees which are that bushy, I've gotten people > screaming at us for much more minor bugs. So that's why I'm curious > to see the original ls bug. Don't get your hopes up. I filed the original bug report https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27739 because I noticed that `ll` (an alias to `ls -alF`) prints something that doesn't make sense. That's also why I filed the bug report on the GNU bug tracker: Clearly, I was still able to access my directories, so they definitely still existed, but `ll` printed `1` which didn't make sense to me, especially not as I never saw a directory with a hard link count lower than 2 before. After successfully replicating¹ it on different machines in an as-simple-as-possible way and thereby already having written bash code capable of replicating the bug, I provided them with that simple example which just creates empty folders. After the GNU guys said it's not their bug, Paul replicated it on his machine (different distro) and filed this bug report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471967 After Red Hat said it's not their bug, he filed the one whose discussion you're reading right now. ----- ¹ Well, kind of. I actually tried it on a third system (didn't mention it until now, afaik) which runs FreeBSD but the code failed because either FreeBSD or its default FS (or whatever FS that machine uses) doesn't support enough subdirectories or something like that (it failed to create the high number of subdirectories for some reason, so I didn't even get to run `ls` under the right conditions) (ergo: Linux > FreeBSD). But it didn't fail in any way related to `ls` and worked on 2 different machines, so I filed the original bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
