On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:56:09PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
> Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm still waking up, but '..' obviously breaks the "no cycle"
> > observations.
>
> Hear, hear ...
>
> > It's just that '..' is well known name by utilities as opposed
> > to arbitrary links.
>
> Well, that leads only to the point that ".." implementation is just lousy and
> it should have been done right in the first place. If there is a need for a
> loop or a hardlink (like "..") all you have to have is a standard way to find
> out, be it flags or the like, whatever. But taking the filename or anything not
> applicable to other cases as matching factor was obviously short-sighted.
hey, why not just implement it, as a proof of concept
and see, what is broken, and what can be fixed ...
maybe your concept has a big fute, ... give it a try!
on the other hand, if you want somebody to implement
this stuff for you, you'll have to provide convincing
arguments for it, I for example, would be glad if
hardlinks where removed from unix altogether ...
best,
Herbert
> Regards,
> Stephan
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:23 EST