On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > You know what tar(1) will do with you for that, don't you? Same ->st_ino
> > with different contents... And unlike procfs, here tar is a Reasonable
> > Thing(tm).
>
> But "tar" won't even _see_ the thing. Unless "tar" starts to know about
> S_IFCOMPLEX. In which case it's a non-issue.
That IS a problem. If I use tar to backup a directory, it will be missing
bits out. That's bad.
Then we get to moving files. My program copies what it sees as "the file"
(which is really just one of the data attributes), then deletes "the file"
(which eliminates all of them). Bang - data loss. Not good.
> Remember: unix-only programs will only see the regular data side. They
> won't ever see the other resource forks at all. Ergo, they cannot break.
On the contrary: they WILL break.
> Programs that are aware of S_IFCOMPLEX are aware of it. Ergo, they cannot
> break.
True (still not convinced we need S_IFCOMPLEX, though).
> In short: not a problem.
In short, there's still a BIG problem. Using mv etc. will cause data loss,
and tar will miss data out. Not good.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST