[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: silent semantic changes with reiser4
Nikita Danilov wrote:

>Christophe Saout writes:
> > Am Freitag, den 27.08.2004, 01:45 +0400 schrieb Nikita Danilov:
> >
> > > > At least in reiser4 they don't have, or at least you can't access them.
> > >
> > > They do.
> > >
> > > > ln -s foo bar; cd bar/metas shows me the content of foo/metas.
> > >
> > > That's because lookup for "bar" performs symlink resolution.
> >
> > So I can't access them and it is pointless. ;-)
> >
> > BTW, I can do a cd metas/metas/metas/metas/plugin/metas... I don't think
> > this makes sense. :)
>Why? foo/metas is a file system object just like foo. It has owner,
>permission bits, so access to its meta-data should be provided, and
>uniform way to provide access to the file system object meta-data is to
>have these little magic files inside metas directory, which is a file
>system object just like metas. It has owner^@^@^@^@*** - Lisp stack
>overflow. RESET
> >
>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
I think Christophe is a bit right here. While in general having
meta-meta objects makes sense, in this particular instance, I don't see
the functional need for it. Can you supply an example of where it would
be useful?
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 14:05    [W:0.482 / U:13.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site