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