Am Freitag, 28. April 2006 18:23 schrieb Kenneth Duda: > Josef, I think Pete confused you with his message. > > Pete was merely pointing out that it is legal in UNIX to have a > directory with a 0 link count.
Apart from the fact, that it was Jan, I'm fine.. I was merely trying to clarify Jeffs question about the 'rd' SuSEism. > He is correct. In his example, the > directory inode has a 0 link count because no file system object > points to it. The reason the directory inode still exists is because > his shell's working directory is holding a reference. You can then > "ls" the directory because ls inherits this dead directory as cwd > from the shell, and then "ls" can stat it as ".". This is all > expected and has nothing to do with unionfs in any case. > > I believe that Junjiro's patch fixes the real unionfs issue here, and > that there are no further problems. Thanks for applying it. > > -Ken > > On 4/28/06, Hans-Peter Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am Freitag, 28. April 2006 02:35 schrieb Josef Sipek: > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:55:47PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > > 15:55 linux01:~ > md xx > > > > 15:55 linux01:~ > cd xx > > > > 15:55 linux01:~/xx > rd ../xx > > > > > > What's `rd`? > > > > alias rd='rmdir' > > > > Historically found in SuSEs /etc/profile, some of us, who get used > > to it migrated that into /etc/profile.local on newer > > distributions.. > > > > Pete > > _______________________________________________ > > unionfs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs > > _______________________________________________ > unionfs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
