[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [reiserfs-dev] Re: [PATCH] sparc32: wrong type of nlink_t
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 03:57:06PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > Now, I've just checked the source of GNU find (v4.1.7) and it does _not_
> > recognize nlink=1 as a special value. (It works as long as there are
> > less than 2^32 subdirectories though, because it is looking for -1
> > subdirectories and it wraps)
> So a value of 0 would have the same effect.
> (0 - 2 == -2 vs 1 - 2 == -1) Yes?

Yes, it will. For GNU find.

But the reasoning for using nlink==1 is that that's how "all non-unix
filesystems" behaved, so applications out there could potentially check
for it.

> I know it is used for reporting purposes such as ls -l. It
> would also used by archiving tools like cpio, tar and rsync
> to identify files that may be linked so that not every file
> must be checked against every previous file. A smart
> archiving tool would track the link count and remove entries
> that have all links found so any value that isn't recognized
> as an overflow indicator would tend to break things. I see
> the value of 0 as indicating "link count unsupported".

Hmm, yes. Values of 1 or NLINK_MAX would definitively confuse such
applications. But then again, so would a value of 0 unless they know
it's meaning.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.058 / U:2.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site