> Redundancy, if done wrong, can also screw you quite badly. So it cuts both
> ways.
>
> For example, a directory structure that is actually fairly powerful is a
> special case of hardlinked directories: not something you want to allow
> most people to do, but what I have actually been asked about a few times
> is a way to have the same directory show up in multiple places. That
> implies that ".." is actually dependent not on the directory itself, but
> on how you got there.
> The standard answer to this in unix is symlinks, but I bet I'm not the
> only person who has ever cursed about "ls subdir/.." being very different
> from "ls .". And there are actually filesystems out there that can do it,
> it's just that they cannot have ".." entries in their directories.
I know of other filesystems which allow this. but they do express
caution.. (Such as AmigaOS)
Something like this could be nasty if not implimeted right.. for example
rm -rf... and in some cases where inode tables became corrupted
where things could get just a little interesting :)
But thats not to say it couldnt be done properly... and would be nice for
some applications..
Theres just that degree of hesitancy about it..
Maybe something to suggest for ext3 in the future.. (If we ever make it to
ext3)
Regards, Jim.
_______________________________________________________________________
| name: james woodward (jim@jim.southcom.com.au) |
| www: http://www.jim.southcom.com.au, http://www.toto.southcom.com.au |
| www: http://www.mailbag.southcom.com.au |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
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/