Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 17:56:09 +0200
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
To: Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com>
Cc: aebr@win.tue.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FS: hardlinks on directories
Message-Id: <20030804175609.7301d075.skraw@ithnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <200308041542.h74Fg9k26251@orbit-fe.eng.netapp.com>
References: <20030804134415.GA4454@win.tue.nl>
	<200308041542.h74Fg9k26251@orbit-fe.eng.netapp.com>
Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 916
Lines: 24

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com> wrote:

> I'm still waking up, but '..' obviously breaks the "no cycle"
> observations.

Hear, hear ...

> It's just that '..' is well known name by utilities as opposed
> to arbitrary links.

Well, that leads only to the point that ".." implementation is just lousy and
it should have been done right in the first place. If there is a need for a
loop or a hardlink (like "..") all you have to have is a standard way to find
out, be it flags or the like, whatever. But taking the filename or anything not
applicable to other cases as matching factor was obviously short-sighted.

Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/