On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 04:51:09PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> expect 0 symlink ${name256} ${n0}
> expect 0 unlink ${n0}
>
> Test 6 is failing with ENAMETOOLONG
> Test 7 is failing (correctly) with ENOENT because test 6 failed.
>
> So there's only one failure here, and that is that that we're rejecting
> ${name256} as too long. I think that getname() is doing this. Seems sane
> to me to disallow symlinking to pathnames that can't be constructed,
> even if POSIX apparently allows it.
i'd rather expect this to be the component validation in xfs_symlink.
It's superflous and not done by any other fiesystem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
