Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if small changes would be needed, but they
really should be pretty much one-liners.
> Linus, I see your point here, but IMO it means only one thing - that we
> should stop pretending that those objects are symlinks. They are
> different. Yes, we have one more type of object. Call it VFS-link,
> wormhole, whatever.
They are NOT symlinks. They never were. It so happens that the VFS
_method_ is called "follow_link", but yes, you might as well call it
"wormhole".
It so happens that for a traditional "unix" symlink, the "wormhole()"
method implies reading the link and looking it up.
> I'm still curious - what are you going to do with rename()? Can the
> "default" file be separated from its directory?
It depends on the filesystem. The "wormhole()" operation might be
equivalent to following a link through a fixed name, but it could be
something else altogether (it could result in another dentry, but with the
same inode - a strange kind of magic hardlink).
That's a low-level FS issue, and should just be decided on implementation
and usability concerns rather than anything else..
Linus
-
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/