[lkml]   [1999]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Your backup is unsafe!

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:

> In <> Riley Williams (rhw@MemAlpha.CX) wrote:
> > What I'd like to see is this dealt with in a SENSIBLE way, so both
> > operating systems see both versions of the name. That way, all such
> > problems vanish.
> > One obvious way round this would be to have the file always appear
> > under the MSDOS version of the name, with the LFN version appearing as
> > a hard link to it. Throw that in, and the problem mentioned above goes
> > away since tar then sees and records both versions of the name.
> > This would place two limitations on the hard link facility:
> > 1. Only one hard link to any given file. Therefore, the link
> > count field in long directory listings is limited to show
> > either 1 link (for a file without an LFN) or 2 links (for
> > a file with an LFN).
> > 2. The hard link must be in the same directory as the file it
> > points to.
> > I don't see either of those limitations as being any more restrictive
> > than what's already in use.

3. We are getting hardlinks to directories. Bummer.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.092 / U:7.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site