Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:42:44 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: FS: hardlinks on directories |
| |
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:29:50 -0500 Jesse Pollard <jesse@cats-chateau.net> wrote:
> On Monday 04 August 2003 10:56, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT) > > > > Brian Pawlowski <beepy@netapp.com> wrote: > > > I'm still waking up, but '..' obviously breaks the "no cycle" > > > observations. > > > > Hear, hear ... > > > > > It's just that '..' is well known name by utilities as opposed > > > to arbitrary links. > > > > Well, that leads only to the point that ".." implementation is just lousy > > and it should have been done right in the first place. If there is a need > > for a loop or a hardlink (like "..") all you have to have is a standard way > > to find out, be it flags or the like, whatever. But taking the filename or > > anything not applicable to other cases as matching factor was obviously > > short-sighted. > > Has nothing to do with the loop. It is called an AVL tree.
Hm, ".." points back to a directory in its parent path (in fact simply its own parent). You don't call this a loop? How come?
If I write a simple program that follows all directory entries of a given directory it will simply loop, it only won't loop if I tell it explicitely _not_ to follow ".." and ".", because "." is nothing else but the shortest possible loop.
Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |