Sorry for continuing this, but I might just as well try setting some things a bit straighter. And I got bored and started reading some old manuals...
HISTORY OF "..": Most of what you wrote about why .. was introduced seems quite wrong. Early versions UNIX didn't have fsck, this is correct (I think fsck as such was introduced with BSD). But they all had file-system consitency checkers (dcheck, icheck and check, guess what they do), including version 1. dcheck and icheck (or check on V1, icheck was introduced a bit later) look like they were simply doing a two-pass run over the file-system, each pass having a bound of log(n). The early versions of UNIX didn't have chroot(), which was introduced somewhere after V7, and where Korn et al raised the concerns about `..' and suggesting changes to namei(). But anyway, using .. for path resolution is idiotic, and should have been implemented the way Korn et all suggested long long ago. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
