Subject: Re: funlink() for fun!
To: NetBSD Kernel Technical Discussion List <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/11/2003 13:42:48
Thus spake Greg A. Woods ("GAW> ") sometime Today...
GAW> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
GAW> From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
GAW> Reply-To: NetBSD Kernel Technical Discussion List
GAW> To: Roland Dowdeswell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
GAW> Cc: NetBSD Kernel Technical Discussion List <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
GAW> Subject: Re: funlink() for fun!
GAW> [ On Friday, July 11, 2003 at 11:03:03 (-0400), Roland Dowdeswell wrote: ]
GAW> > Subject: Re: funlink() for fun!
GAW> > I think that funlink(2) as an idea doesn't really make sense.
GAW> > unlink(2) specifically operates on directory entries, not on files.
GAW> Unlink(2) may specifically also operate on files as well as the link in
GAW> the parent directory, and it will always also operate on the file if
GAW> that file has only one link.
Your logic is flawed. Please show how unlink(2) operates on files.
- it doesn't write to them.
- it doesn't create them.
- it doesn't even really destroy them, though it arranges for them to be
potentially destroyed once the link count goes to zero and the filesystem
reclaims the blocks associated with them.
NetBSD: exercised any daemons lately?