On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
> > > Dealing with aliases hell on VFAT was enough.
> >
> > Eh? This looks like a complete non-sequitur from where I'm sitting. NTFS
> > isn't VFAT, and there are no aliases involved.
> >
> > > Yes, NTFS will miss some of the "wonders" (objects are different,
> > > after all), but even the rest is more than enough.
> >
> > What "wonders", and how would NTFS "miss" them?
>
> There are two sorts of crap in handling namespace on VFAT.
> * you are getting short names. They behave partially as hardlinks,
> partially as hell knows what. They can disappear upon rename (two
> different objects become the same). Name that used to be absent may become
> present just because you've created a file with totally unrelated name.
> You can have several aliases for the same directory. That's the hell NTFS
> may miss.
IMO, we can drop all that. If NT can, so can we...
> * these damned short names have a nasty habit of travelling when
> you do operations on different names. And that's the thing you will
> reproduce with that approach on NTFS.
Nah. Let's just drop short filenames.
> BTW, "same inode" thing is obviously wrong, but who says that we
> must go for that?
That whole concept had me reaching for the sickbag. I'd just drop the
whole "files == directories == mount-points == some sort of magic thing
which breaks everything" crap.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:31 EST