Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:45:49 +1100 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: EXT2_UNRM_FL |
| |
david parsons writes: > In article <linux.kernel.199903032337.SAA00994@dcl>, > Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU> wrote: > > > > (d) why not do it in userspace anyway? I did that years ago, although > > I "moved" files to /tmp, but it would be easy enough to move to a > > garbage/$LOGNAME directory on the same FS. > > > >Absolutely, agreed. As I said earlier, there are plenty of user-space > >"rm" replacements, and doing it in the kernel is almost certainly not > >worth the pain. > > Unless you want to do it the right way. > > Userspace bolt-ons are spiffy iff you stick within the environment > the designer the bolt-on set up for you. If you walk outside that > environment, all of a sudden things don't work anymore, so (for > instance) a LD_PRELOAD will mysteriously fail when you run a > statically linked rm command, or a hacked ELF library will fail > when you have the temerity to run an a.out executable.
But why does it matter? Safe-delete is hardly a critical facility: it's just there to protect you from doing silly things like: % rm fred *
I'm not even convinced it belongs anywhere except in a replacement utility for rm(1). It doesn't seem critical for other programmes. And it's definately not critical for *all* programmes.
The only other place outside of rm(1) I can see it being useful is inside a GUI like a file manager. In which case it's new code and I don't think we have to worry about static binaries (statically linked GUIs are bloatware, especially if they come as part of a desktop environment, where you get lots of copies of the same code).
Regards,
Richard....
- 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/
| |