Re: [RFC] fix sysfs symlinks

From: Horst von Brand
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 13:07:00 EST

viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > No, we don't want that. It's ok to have a dangling symlink in the fs if
> > the device the link was pointing to is now gone. All of the struct
> > class_device stuff relies on the fact that a struct device can go away
> > at any time, and nothing bad will happen (with the exception of a stale
> > symlink.)
> >
> > Yeah, it can cause a few odd looking trees when you unplug and replug a
> > device a bunch of times, all the while grabbing a reference to the class
> > device, but once everything is released by the user, it is cleaned up
> > properly, with no harm done to anything.
> Except that these "symlinks" are expected to follow the target upon
> renames. Which means that we either need a very messy scanning of
> the entire tree on every rename (obviously not feasible) or we need
> to store pointer to target and regenerate the path. Which, in turn,
> requires holding a reference.

Sounds an awful lot like ordinary hard links...
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at