Hubert Chan wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:50:08 -0400 EDT, "Alexander G. M. Smith" <[email protected]> said:
>
>
>
>>That sounds equivalent to no hard links (other than the usual parent
>>directory one). If there's any directory with two links to it, then
>>there will be a cycle somewhere!
>>
>>
>
>What we want is no directed cycles. That is A is the parent of B is the
>parent of C is the parent of A. We don't care about A is the parent of
>B is the parent of C; A is the parent of B is the parent of C.
>
>OK, here's a random idea that just popped into my head, and to which
>I've given little thought (read: none whatsoever), and may be the
>stupidest idea ever proposed on LKML, but thought I would just toss it
>out to see if it could stimulate someone to come up with something
>better (read: sane): Conceptually, foo/.... is just a symlink to
>/meta/[filesystem]/[inode of foo].
>
>
Except that we want the metafiles to go away when the base file goes away.
>And a question: is it feasible to store, for each inode, its parent(s),
>instead of just the hard link count?
>
>
Ooh, now that is an interesting old idea I haven't considered in 20
years.... makes fsck more robust too....
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |