Re: Adding linux_link(2) system call (Was: Re: link(2) on a symlink to a directory fails)

[Rhialto <rhialto%falu.nl@localhost>]

On Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 12:12:22 -0400, Mouse wrote:
> (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.

I seem to remember that once upon a time, the idea for symlinks was that
they were magic in some way, and would not have mode bits, owner/group,
etc. Not having a link count would fit with that. Not that I agree with
it, because the implementation has always been different and makes sense
in its own right (if not more). So I vote for allowing hard links to
symlinks.

> (c) I've long thought there should be a way to update a symlink
> in-place.

Yes!

-Olaf.
-- 
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert  -- There's no point being grown-up if you 
\X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl    -- can't be childish sometimes. -The 4th Doctor