From: Sam Vilain (sam_at_vilain.net)
Date: Sun 27 Jul 2003 - 22:04:32 BST
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:34, Herbert P÷tzl wrote:
> ... but this was the moment I asked myself:
> - do we need the ILI flag at all?
> - isn't the concept enough for everyday
> VS usage scenarios?
Absolutely. But a more generic solution may end up solving problems
that you didn't think of originally.
> what if we apply the following logic:
> - a file, set to immutable, having a link
> count of greater than 1, can be removed,
> but not changed from within a VC, as if
> the ili flag was set, all other files are
> just handled as normal ...
> - on removal of the last but one link, the
> immutable flag is cleared, and the file
> becomes a 'normal' file ...
This breaks the normal immutable semantics. On the other hand, this
would be fine if it was a configurable behaviour.
You will still need the split immutability macros, so all it saves you
is one bit per inode. I think really it is just a matter of
"registering" the bit with the maintainers of the relevant code so
that no other feature comes and uses it after that.
Perhaps posing the question to the e2fsprogs mailing list and the LKML
would help. I did that once a long time ago, maybe this time they
will listen :-).
-- Sam Vilain, sam_at_vilain.net
My life has no purpose, no direction, no aim, no meaning, and yet I'm happy. I can't figure it out. What am I doing right? -- Charles M. Schulz