Re: [PATCH] cowlinks v2

[Jörn Engel]

On Tue, 30 March 2004 01:16:35 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> I think they *should* have separate permissions.

That makes the count 2:2.  I'll continue to follow the simple solution
for some time, but wouldn't like to have it included for now (or ever?)

> Also it should be possible to have file with 2 hardlinks cowlinked
> somewhere, and possibly make more hardlinks of that one... Having
> pointer to another inode in place where direct block pointers normally
> are should be enough (thinking ext2 here).

All right, you are proposing hell.  I've tried to think through all
possibilities and was too scared to continue.  So limitation is that
cowlinks and hardlinks are mutually exclusive, which eliminated all
problems.

If you really want cowlinks and hardlinks to be intermixed freely, I'd
happily agree with you as soon as you can define the behaviour for all
possible cases in a simple document and none of them make me scared
again.  Show me that it is possible and makes sense.

Jörn

-- 
A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is
no battle unless there be two.
-- Seneca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/