pancs:~/kernel# ll
total 460
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-19 19:36
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 259 2007-05-06 13:14 lspc.sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 92184 2007-05-06 13:06 mypc.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 91058 2007-05-06 12:42 pc.tct
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 93834 2007-05-06 12:58 pc.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 182116 2007-05-06 12:39 tet
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-06 12:41
the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.
I have several times booting and using the 2.6.21-git1 .. 2.6.22-rc2 kernels.
And now I use 2.6.21.1.
This error have yet others to happen.
(sorry for the bad spelling, I not learned english)
[Adding xfs-masters to CC]
On 19/05/07, oliver pinter <[email protected]> wrote:
> pancs:~/kernel# ll
> total 460
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-19 19:36
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 259 2007-05-06 13:14 lspc.sh
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 92184 2007-05-06 13:06 mypc.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 91058 2007-05-06 12:42 pc.tct
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 93834 2007-05-06 12:58 pc.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 182116 2007-05-06 12:39 tet
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-06 12:41
>
> the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.
>
> I have several times booting and using the 2.6.21-git1 .. 2.6.22-rc2 kernels.
> And now I use 2.6.21.1.
>
> This error have yet others to happen.
>
> (sorry for the bad spelling, I not learned english)
> -
Regards,
Michal
--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
Kernel Monkeys
(http://kernel.wikidot.com/start)
In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-06 12:41
>
> the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.
Well, 0 byte files are nothing special, and the name: it might be a non-printable char?
> touch ' '
will produce a similiar file. Try "ls -li | od -cx"
Greetings
Bernd
On 5/19/07, Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2007-05-06 12:41
> >
> > the last line is very interesting, this file has no name and the size is 0 byte.
>
> Well, 0 byte files are nothing special, and the name: it might be a non-printable char?
>
> > touch ' '
>
> will produce a similiar file. Try "ls -li | od -cx"
>
0000000 t o t a l 4 6 0 \n 8 6 1 2 5 5
6f74 6174 206c 3634 0a30 3638 3231 3535
0000020 4 - r w x r - x r - x 1 r
2034 722d 7877 2d72 7278 782d 3120 7220
0000040 o o t r o o t 2 5 9
6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020 2020 3532 2039
0000060 2 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6 1 3 : 1 4
3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630 3120 3a33 3431
0000100 l s p c . s h \n 8 6 1 2 5 5 2
6c20 7073 2e63 6873 380a 3136 3532 3235
0000120 - r w - r - - r - - 1 r o
2d20 7772 722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72
0000140 o t r o o t 9 2 1 8 4 2
746f 7220 6f6f 2074 3920 3132 3438 3220
0000160 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6 1 3 : 0 6
3030 2d37 3530 302d 2036 3331 303a 2036
0000200 m y p c . t x t \n 8 6 1 2 5 5 1
796d 6370 742e 7478 380a 3136 3532 3135
0000220 - r w - r - - r - - 1 r o
2d20 7772 722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72
0000240 o t r o o t 9 1 0 5 8 2
746f 7220 6f6f 2074 3920 3031 3835 3220
0000260 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6 1 2 : 4 2
3030 2d37 3530 302d 2036 3231 343a 2032
0000300 p c . t c t \n 8 6 1 2 5 4 8 -
6370 742e 7463 380a 3136 3532 3834 2d20
0000320 r w - r - - r - - 1 r o o t
7772 722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72 746f
0000340 r o o t 9 3 8 3 4 2 0 0
7220 6f6f 2074 3920 3833 3433 3220 3030
0000360 7 - 0 5 - 0 6 1 2 : 5 8 p c
2d37 3530 302d 2036 3231 353a 2038 6370
0000400 . t x t \n 8 6 1 2 5 5 0 - r w
742e 7478 380a 3136 3532 3035 2d20 7772
0000420 - r - - r - - 1 r o o t r
722d 2d2d 2d72 202d 2031 6f72 746f 7220
0000440 o o t 1 8 2 1 1 6 2 0 0 7 -
6f6f 2074 3831 3132 3631 3220 3030 2d37
0000460 0 5 - 0 6 1 2 : 3 9 t e t \n
3530 302d 2036 3231 333a 2039 6574 0a74
0000500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r
3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
0000520 - - 1 r o o t r o o t
2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
0000540 0 2 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6
2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
0000560 1 2 : 4 1 \n \0
3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
0000571
In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> 0000500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r
> 3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> 0000520 - - 1 r o o t r o o t
> 2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> 0000540 0 2 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6
> 2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> 0000560 1 2 : 4 1 \n \0
> 3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> 0000571
That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)
Gruss
Bernd
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:14:10PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > 0000500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r
> > 3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> > 0000520 - - 1 r o o t r o o t
> > 2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> > 0000540 0 2 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6
> > 2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> > 0000560 1 2 : 4 1 \n \0
> > 3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> > 0000571
>
> That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
> bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)
No, look closer above, its name is the single-character '\xa0'. It's
this output format which makes the analysis difficult. And it's also
'od' which has added '\0' to pad its 16 bit buffer. I tend to prefer
to use 'od -tx1' or 'od -ctx1' here.
I would suggest doing 'rm -i ?' to remove that file, or rm -i $'\xa0'
for the paranoid.
Willy
other dir's ls see I zero \0
On 5/19/07, Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > 0000500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r
> > 3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> > 0000520 - - 1 r o o t r o o t
> > 2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> > 0000540 0 2 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6
> > 2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> > 0000560 1 2 : 4 1 \n \0
> > 3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> > 0000571
>
> That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
> bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
[resending since I just noticed that Bern trimmed the CC list]
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:14:10PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > 0000500 8 6 1 2 5 4 9 - r w - r - - r
> > 3638 3231 3435 2039 722d 2d77 2d72 722d
> > 0000520 - - 1 r o o t r o o t
> > 2d2d 3120 7220 6f6f 2074 6f72 746f 2020
> > 0000540 0 2 0 0 7 - 0 5 - 0 6
> > 2020 2020 2030 3032 3730 302d 2d35 3630
> > 0000560 1 2 : 4 1 \n \0
> > 3120 3a32 3134 a020 000a
> > 0000571
>
> That file with the inode 8612549 has indeed an empty name. (And I wonder a
> bit about the trailing \0, my ls does not do that?)
No, look closer above, its name is the single-character '\xa0'. It's
this output format which makes the analysis difficult. And it's also
'od' which has added '\0' to pad its 16 bit buffer. I tend to prefer
to use 'od -tx1' or 'od -ctx1' here.
I would suggest doing 'rm -i ?' to remove that file, or rm -i $'\xa0'
for the paranoid.
Willy
yeah, but how produziert?
On 5/19/07, oliver pinter <[email protected]> wrote:
> with rm -i $'\xa0' command, have I removed the file
>
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
> yeah, but how produziert?
I *think* it is the unbreakable space. Maybe you can enter it on
your keyboard using AltGr-spacebar or something like this. If this
is the case, it's possible that you got it right after a '>' during
a command like below :
# foo >_ bar
with this character instead of the '_' above.
Regards,
Willy
On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>> yeah, but how produziert?
>
>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
\xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)
>Maybe you can enter it on
>your keyboard using AltGr-spacebar or something like this. If this
>is the case, it's possible that you got it right after a '>' during
>a command like below :
perl -e 'open F,">\xa0"';
Jan
--
Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> writes:
> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>>> yeah, but how produziert?
>>
>>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
>
> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)
Actually, in a utf-8 environment you see it much better.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [email protected]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstra?e 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:39:33AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
> >> yeah, but how produziert?
> >
> >I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
>
> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)
An even better reason is to be in ISO-8859 :-)
Willy
On May 20 2007 11:14, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> writes:
>> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>>>> yeah, but how produziert?
>>>
>>>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
>>
>> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
>> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)
>
>Actually, in a utf-8 environment you see it much better.
But only if invalid sequences are replaced by a question mark or whatever,
which is not the case in xterm.
Jan
--
Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> writes:
> On May 20 2007 11:14, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On May 19 2007 22:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>>>On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 09:50:43PM +0200, oliver pinter wrote:
>>>>> yeah, but how produziert?
>>>>
>>>>I *think* it is the unbreakable space.
>>>
>>> \xa0 is 160, aka the NBSP. But __only__ in ISO-8859. It is an invalid
>>> UTF-8 sequence (which is why you may not even "see" the nbsp :-)
>>
>>Actually, in a utf-8 environment you see it much better.
>
> But only if invalid sequences are replaced by a question mark or whatever,
> which is not the case in xterm.
That depends on your font, I guess. The font I use has a visible
replacement character.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [email protected]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstra?e 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."