Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:06:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:05:59 -0400 Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.19]:45318 "EHLO mailout06.sul.t-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:05:40 -0400 Date: 13 Jul 2001 22:22:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: viro@math.psu.edu cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <84l4sXb1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Question about ext2 X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh7 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? In-Reply-To: X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org viro@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) wrote on 13.07.01 in : > The only really obscure part is dropping an extra reference if victim is > a directory - then we know that we are cannibalizing the last external > link to it and the only link that remains is victim's ".". We don't want > it to prevent victim's removal, so we drive i_nlink of victim to zero. Does this stuff work right with those cases which do linkcount=1 either because the fs doesn't have a link count, or because the real link count has grown too large? MfG Kai - 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/