From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271754AbTHDOuI (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:50:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271755AbTHDOuI (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:50:08 -0400 Received: from mail3.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.7]:48317 "HELO heather-ng.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S271754AbTHDOuE (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:50:04 -0400 X-Sender-Authentification: SMTPafterPOP by from 217.64.64.14 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:50:02 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Anton Altaparmakov Cc: aebr@win.tue.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FS: hardlinks on directories Message-Id: <20030804165002.791aae3d.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20030804141548.5060b9db.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030804134415.GA4454@win.tue.nl> <20030804155604.2cdb96e7.skraw@ithnet.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:04:28 +0100 (BST) Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > For a start the kernel VFS dcache would break because you end up with > multiple entries for each inode, one entry for each parallel directory > tree. Read-only you are just about able to get away with it (been there, > done that, don't recommend it!) but allow files to be deleted and it will > blow up in your face. I cannot comment, I have no inside knowledge of it. > You ask for examples of applications? There are millions! Anything that > walks the directory tree for a start, e.g. ls -R, find, locatedb, medusa, > du, any type of search and/or indexing engine, chown -R, cp -R, scp > -R, chmod -R, etc... There is a flaw in this argument. If I am told that mount --bind does just about what I want to have as a feature then these applictions must have the same problems already (if I mount braindead). So an implementation in fs cannot do any _additional_ damage to these applications, or not? My saying is not "I want to have hardlinks for creating a big mess of loops inside my filesystems". Your view simply drops the fact that there are more possibilities to create and use hardlinks without any loops... Regards, Stephan