Subject: Re: funlink() for fun!
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/12/2003 04:11:43
[ On Friday, July 11, 2003 at 16:20:43 (-0700), Greywolf wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: funlink() for fun!
> Thus spake Greg A. Woods ("GAW> ") sometime Today...
> 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.
> No, it doesn't.
You've obviously forgotten what a file is (in a unix filesystem),
despite my many attempts to remind you. You cannot, and must not,
attempt to separate a file from its metadata in a unix filesystem.
> Whether or not we need funlink(2), though, remains to be seen.
> I rather suspect we really don't.
Nobody, least of all me, has ever said we do.
> Where does access(2) win over *stat(2)? I don't understand that at all.
Never. But not for the reasons you seem to be implying.
faccess(), on the other hand....
> faccess(2) would be moot, wouldn't it, given fstat(2)?
no, not really, as I've already explained.
> How about flink(2), for an open fd?
As I've already said: perhaps. :-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>