Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-14 Thread Jim Meyering
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 t

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-13 Thread Jim Meyering
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've tried out the CVS version of findutils+gnulib, and it does indeed >> seem to fix the problem with inode-less filesystems, in addition to >> using noticably less system time. >> >> I've also found that the -x

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-13 Thread Jim Meyering
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've tried out the CVS version of findutils+gnulib, and it does indeed > seem to fix the problem with inode-less filesystems, in addition to > using noticably less system time. > > I've also found that the -xdev option of find no longer works: it > output

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-13 Thread Miklos Szeredi
Hi, I've tried out the CVS version of findutils+gnulib, and it does indeed seem to fix the problem with inode-less filesystems, in addition to using noticably less system time. I've also found that the -xdev option of find no longer works: it outputs just a single line for the base directory. Lo

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-12 Thread Jim Meyering
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Separating the patch into parts wasn't really an option after all. >> I've checked this in: > > Looks great. Thanks. > > What's the easiest way to try this out? The patch doesn't apply to > the gnulib present in findutils-4.3.1, and I have no idea how

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-12 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> Separating the patch into parts wasn't really an option after all. > I've checked this in: Looks great. Thanks. What's the easiest way to try this out? The patch doesn't apply to the gnulib present in findutils-4.3.1, and I have no idea how to graft a new gnulib version into findutils. Thank

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-12 Thread Jim Meyering
I wrote: > This started with the bug report: > > http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?17877 > Invalid "No such file or directory" error on filesystem without stable > inode numbers ... > Anyhow, here's the diff: > [tested via valgrind on coreutils' tests of du, chmod, chown, chgrp, > and via "make ch

fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-11 Thread Jim Meyering
This started with the bug report: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?17877 Invalid "No such file or directory" error on filesystem without stable inode numbers To summarize the problem, ... for each directory that fts processes, it opens it, reads all entries, and stats each entry, storing the re