Attilio Rao wrote: > 2008/1/26, Doug Barton <dougb_at_freebsd.org>: >> Yar Tikhiy wrote: >> >>> No doubt. :-) But the urgency of this problem appears much lower >>> than that I estimated in the first place--fortunately. Broken UFS >>> would be a nightmare. >> IMO if we're going to ship NTFS support in the base it should actually >> function, or at minimum not panic the box. As I reported earlier, I can >> panic my -current system with 100% reliability with fairly light access >> to an NTFS volume, which I consider to be a fairly large problem, at >> least for my personal usage pattern. > > I'm not sure now, are you referring to some problems introduced by my > patches or not? Not sure of the timeline. I think this is the most relevant post on the matter, let me know if there is anything I can do to help diagnose this. http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=644445+0+archive/2008/freebsd-current/20080113.freebsd-current -- This .signature sanitized for your protectionReceived on Sat Jan 26 2008 - 22:09:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:26 UTC