On 04/12/2010 08:15 AM, Paul Bibbings wrote: > 14:57:37 Paul bibbi...@jijou > /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $link zoo.exe zoo_link > > 14:57:54 Paul bibbi...@jijou > /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $ls -l > total 128 > -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo.exe > -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo_link.exe
Umm, that decisively shows that 'link' created a hard link, working as designed. zoo.exe and zoo_link.exe both have a link count of 2, compared to the typical link count of 1, so they are one and the same inode. > > Can I ask first of all: does link itself use ln and should I be testing > this? link(1) and ln(1) both call the link(2) syscall (well, ln does that if you didn't request symlinks). Maybe your confusion stems from wanting a symlink instead of a hard link? In which case, ln(1) is the only way to get symlinks; link(1) can _only_ create hard links. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
