On Wed Oct 27 10, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/27/10 14:26, Alexander Best wrote: > >are in fact COW fs the only exception where the -P flag won't work? before > >r213582 LFS was mentioned here and that the block size must be fixed. > >also the comment in rm.c says that -P won't work for any logging file > >systems. > >i'm not a fs expert, but i think mentioning that -P won't work for COW fs > >isn't > >enough. > > What may be a better approach is to confirm the fs' that DO work, list > them, and then add something to the effect of, "This feature is unlikely > to work on other file systems."
i don't think that's a good approach, because then the rm(1) has to be changed everytime freebsd gets a new fs which works with the -P option. i think it's better to list which fs semantics DON'T work. so if freebsd gets a new fs, users simply have to know which semantics the new fs is based on and can decide for themselves whether the -P switch will work or not. so far the -P option doesn't seem to work for: - COW fs and/or - fs with a variable block size and/or - fs which do journaling please correct me if i got anything wrong. so i think having such a list in the rm(1) manual would be very nice (maybe improving the comment in rm.c too). cheers. alex > > > hth, > > Doug > > -- > > Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. > -- OK Go > > Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. > Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ > -- a13x _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
