Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:09:29 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Can't hardlink in different dirs. (BUG#826) |
| |
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Alexander Viro wrote: > > >Andrea, WHAT FOR? Give a rationale for your change, other than "let's > >change it". Name a single benefit of proposed semantics. > > The rational is that I don't want to see my inodes sparse around the fs by > an luser. I don't want to find them in /tmp. I don't care if he takes them > opened, the root can kill his tasks and the fs layout will return normal > then. It's a namespace issue. If I put my inode in my directory it must > not finish into /tmp after some time by somebody that has nothing to do > with me.
<LART> Inodes are not in any fscking directory. You are not on VMS. Learn the bloody basics of UNIX filesystems _before_ playing with them. One more time: Files Are Nameless. Namespace Is A Separate Thing. Name Is Just A Reference To File, One Of Many Possible. Andrea, it's "F" on UNIX 101. Links have no ownership, damnit. </LART> ... and F- on UNIX SA 101 - if you don't know the reasons to keep /tmp on a separate filesystem.
As for "kill his tasks" - great, is that what you do when you decide to rm something? I like that policy, but it may be a bit of, erm, overkill.
Besides, why on the Earth do you have finite quota for _root_, in the first place? It's an instant fsckup(tm) waiting to happen. Sheesh...
- 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/
| |