Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:54:40 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cowlinks v2 |
| |
On Tue, 30 March 2004 01:16:35 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > I think they *should* have separate permissions.
That makes the count 2:2. I'll continue to follow the simple solution for some time, but wouldn't like to have it included for now (or ever?)
> Also it should be possible to have file with 2 hardlinks cowlinked > somewhere, and possibly make more hardlinks of that one... Having > pointer to another inode in place where direct block pointers normally > are should be enough (thinking ext2 here).
All right, you are proposing hell. I've tried to think through all possibilities and was too scared to continue. So limitation is that cowlinks and hardlinks are mutually exclusive, which eliminated all problems.
If you really want cowlinks and hardlinks to be intermixed freely, I'd happily agree with you as soon as you can define the behaviour for all possible cases in a simple document and none of them make me scared again. Show me that it is possible and makes sense.
Jörn
-- A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there be two. -- Seneca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |