On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 03:57:06PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > Now, I've just checked the source of GNU find (v4.1.7) and it does _not_
> > recognize nlink=1 as a special value. (It works as long as there are
> > less than 2^32 subdirectories though, because it is looking for -1
> > subdirectories and it wraps)
>
> So a value of 0 would have the same effect.
> (0 - 2 == -2 vs 1 - 2 == -1) Yes?
Yes, it will. For GNU find.
But the reasoning for using nlink==1 is that that's how "all non-unix
filesystems" behaved, so applications out there could potentially check
for it.
> I know it is used for reporting purposes such as ls -l. It
> would also used by archiving tools like cpio, tar and rsync
> to identify files that may be linked so that not every file
> must be checked against every previous file. A smart
> archiving tool would track the link count and remove entries
> that have all links found so any value that isn't recognized
> as an overflow indicator would tend to break things. I see
> the value of 0 as indicating "link count unsupported".
Hmm, yes. Values of 1 or NLINK_MAX would definitively confuse such
applications. But then again, so would a value of 0 unless they know
it's meaning.
-- Ragnar Kjørstad - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:27 EST