Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:05:24 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Your backup is unsafe! |
| |
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote: > > > > The reason I ask this is that my understanding of the way the VFAT fs > > > works implies that the two names are effectively independant, and the > > > only requirement attached to them is that they both point to the same > > > file. > > > > Wrong. LFN is attached to short name. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds very like an > LFN is actually a (rather restricted) symlink. > > Perhaps that's a potential solution.
Damn. It looks like it's time to write a FAQ on the VFAT bogosities. Please, look through the list archive for last 24 hours. Symlinks do not move after the file, for one. And file doesn't become a symlink when you rename it.
> It could make for rather ugly directory listings, but IMO > that's better than the ugly code that we have now.
All handling of aliases you *can* eliminate this way sits in one (small) function. And you'll have to reintroduce it in ->follow_link().
- 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/
| |