Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:53:40 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: I discussed reading directories as files with jra, Stallman, and loic |
| |
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > Huh? You mean that the right case here being *not* the regular symlink? > > No, the normal case being _nothing_. Neither symlink nor other wormhole.
Accepted, but in that respect both implementations are identical.
> > Up to you. But IMO you are mixing two seriously different objects > > together and the cost is pretty high. > > Why? > > They are NOT different. > > They are only different because you _think_ they are different. Get over > your hangups with old implementations of symlinks, and you will notice > that it's _exactly_ the same issue as with any other "magic wormhole".
If you hope to get the meaningful behaviour with the same rules for following wormholes and following symlinks I would like to hear details. Really. That's where they differ big way. Another thing about wormholes being: life would be much simpler if we considered devices and FIFOs that way. We don't need a namespace to keep a bunch of dentries. But that's another story...
> I agree about code duplication, but if that's your concern then you should > just create a "generic_file_symlink()", the same way we condense the > common code for "generic_file_read()" and "generic_file_write()". That has > nothing to do with whether it is recursive or not.
Umm... Almost so, except that amount of stack wastage *does* matter here. OK, I'll rewrite the patch into that form (not a big problem).
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |