[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Adding linux_link(2) system call (Was: Re: link(2) on a symlink to a directory fails)
>>> I'd disagree with this as it seems like a nonsensical thing to do.
> Because symlinks are a special type of filesystem object with their
> own semantics
Every filesystem object is. :)
> Also, from a more operational standpoint, because there's no way to
> update a symlink in place, so there's no difference between two
> symlinks and two hard links to the same symlink except confusion and
> the number of inodes used.
(a) You're forgetting that symlinks have other attributes than the
link-to string. The most obvious is mode bits (which have no effect
unless you mount -o symperm, but (a1) that can be done and (a2) they
can be queried with lstat(2) even if the filesystem doesn't use them),
but there are others, such as owner, or even inumber.
(b) If you have a lot of symlinks, inode usage may actually matter.
(c) I've long thought there should be a way to update a symlink
> FWIW, I just asked some linux guys about the linux behavior and the
> answer was "we sell rope".
That would be my answer too, though I'd probably phrase it as not
preventing you from doing stupid things because it would also prevent
you from doing clever things.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |