[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NTFS-like streams?
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
> > > Dealing with aliases hell on VFAT was enough.
> >
> > Eh? This looks like a complete non-sequitur from where I'm sitting. NTFS
> > isn't VFAT, and there are no aliases involved.
> >
> > > Yes, NTFS will miss some of the "wonders" (objects are different,
> > > after all), but even the rest is more than enough.
> >
> > What "wonders", and how would NTFS "miss" them?
> There are two sorts of crap in handling namespace on VFAT.
> * you are getting short names. They behave partially as hardlinks,
> partially as hell knows what. They can disappear upon rename (two
> different objects become the same). Name that used to be absent may become
> present just because you've created a file with totally unrelated name.
> You can have several aliases for the same directory. That's the hell NTFS
> may miss.

IMO, we can drop all that. If NT can, so can we...

> * these damned short names have a nasty habit of travelling when
> you do operations on different names. And that's the thing you will
> reproduce with that approach on NTFS.

Nah. Let's just drop short filenames.

> BTW, "same inode" thing is obviously wrong, but who says that we
> must go for that?

That whole concept had me reaching for the sickbag. I'd just drop the
whole "files == directories == mount-points == some sort of magic thing
which breaks everything" crap.


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 13:58    [W:0.145 / U:6.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site