Hubert Chan wrote: >On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:50:08 -0400 EDT, "Alexander G. M. Smith" <[EMAIL >PROTECTED]> said: > > > >>That sounds equivalent to no hard links (other than the usual parent >>directory one). If there's any directory with two links to it, then >>there will be a cycle somewhere! >> >> > >What we want is no directed cycles. That is A is the parent of B is the >parent of C is the parent of A. We don't care about A is the parent of >B is the parent of C; A is the parent of B is the parent of C. > >OK, here's a random idea that just popped into my head, and to which >I've given little thought (read: none whatsoever), and may be the >stupidest idea ever proposed on LKML, but thought I would just toss it >out to see if it could stimulate someone to come up with something >better (read: sane): Conceptually, foo/.... is just a symlink to >/meta/[filesystem]/[inode of foo]. > > Except that we want the metafiles to go away when the base file goes away.
>And a question: is it feasible to store, for each inode, its parent(s), >instead of just the hard link count? > > Ooh, now that is an interesting old idea I haven't considered in 20 years.... makes fsck more robust too....
