> Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Horst von Brand wrote:
>> >Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>Horst von Brand wrote:
>> >>>Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>>>Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [...]
>> >>>>>2. How do we want to expose named streams?
>> >>>>> One suggestion is file-as-directory in some form.
>> >>>Which is broken, as it forbids hard links to files.
>> >>No, it forbids hard links to the directory aspect of the file-directory
>> >>duality.
>> >How do you distinguish a "hard link to the directory personality" from
>> >"hard link to the file personality"?
>> Put in (undoubtedly overly) simple terms, if you can do it to a file you
>> can do it to the file personality, but if you currently can only do it
>> to a directory and get an error from attempting it to a file then in the
>> new scheme doing it to the hard link only gives the same error.
> Let me sort this out: If it can't be done POSIXly to a directory, it can't
> be done in Reiser4 to a file (which really is a directory too). So there
> can be exactly _one_ hard link to a file. Way borken.
But you can make a hard link to a file in reiser4, and you can
access the metadata in both. I did this test:
echo "moooo" > test
ln test moo
chmod +x moo test
echo "0700" > test/metas/rwx
dir moo test
-rwx------ 2 root root 10 Sep 7 23:17 moo*
-rwx------ 2 root root 10 Sep 7 23:17 test*
echo "0777" > test/metas/rwx
dir moo test
-rwxrwxrwx 2 root root 10 Sep 7 23:17 moo*
-rwxrwxrwx 2 root root 10 Sep 7 23:17 test*
rm moo test
mkdir test
ln test moo
ln: `test': hard link not allowed for directory
If this is the intended behaviour I do not know, but it shows that
hard links works as normal.
You can also do linking to meta-data:
echo moo > moo
ln -s moo/metas/rwx test
dir
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Sep 7 23:24 moo*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Sep 7 23:25 test -> moo/metas/rwx
echo 0700 > test
dir moo
-rwx------ 1 root root 0 Sep 7 23:24 moo*
>> Or, we can ask Alexander to help us use his deadlock detection algorithm
>> and try to do things right....
> Good luck with that one. I'd suspect if it can be made to work, it will
> have _huge_ overhead, so much that it is useless. I'd love to be proven
> wrong, but I won't hold my breath.
