From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262015AbVGEXsG (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:48:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262019AbVGEXsG (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:48:06 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]:37040 "EHLO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262015AbVGEXsD (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:48:03 -0400 Message-ID: <42CB1C20.3030204@namesys.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:47:44 -0700 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Masover CC: Hubert Chan , Ross Biro , Horst von Brand , Kyle Moffett , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Lincoln Dale , Gregory Maxwell , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List , Alexander Zarochentcev , vs , Nate Diller Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins References: <200506290509.j5T595I6010576@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <87hdfgvqvl.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca> <8783be6605062914341bcff7cb@mail.gmail.com> <878y0svj1h.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca> <42C4F97B.1080803@slaphack.com> <87ll4lynky.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca> <42CB0328.3070706@namesys.com> <42CB07EB.4000605@slaphack.com> <42CB0ED7.8070501@namesys.com> <42CB1128.6000000@slaphack.com> In-Reply-To: <42CB1128.6000000@slaphack.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Masover wrote: >Now, can anyone think of a situation where we want user-created >hardlinks inside metadata? More importantly, what do we do about it? > > I think the equivalent of symlinks would be good enough to get by on for now for most linking of metafiles. Maybe some years from now somebody can fault me for saying this and write a patch to fix it to be better, at which point I will be happy to concede the point. So the basic principal here is, one can have hardlinks to directories without cycles provided that one does not allow any child of the directory to have a hardlink. The question is, how cleanly can that relaxed restriction be coded? Hans