From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200301101827.h0AIRE626291@brother.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: /dev/zero & /dev/full support - open, link and unlink fixes [PATCH]
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:27:13 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To:	<3E1E11A7.821B54ED@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Jan 10, 2003 12:19:51 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Richard Dawe:
> Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> > According to Richard Dawe:
> > > * link: Don't allow linking to or from /dev/{zero,full}.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Because we don't support hardlinks. See:

Ah, yes. Silly me was think of symlinks. That's still allowed, right?

> > This mean that "rm /dev/zero" can never be removed, right?

That included a typo. However you read the question right ("rm
/dev/zero" will never succeed).

> Yes. Is that a problem?

Not sure. I was thinking about what if I had managed to get me /dev
directory which contained zero, how would I get rid of it with DJGPP
tools. Perhaps I shouldn't expect to be able to do it, because of the
specialty of /dev in DJGPP. Hmm... Yes, I think I convinced
myself. /dev will never to easy to handle with DJGPP, so I should more
or less forget about it.

> > Does that mean that when somebody codes support for /dev/hda (e. g.)
> > he must add it to this list?
> 
> Which list? You'd have to write another FSEXT to handle /dev/hd[a-z][0-9a-f]?
> or whatever.

The list consisting of "/dev/zero" and "/dev/full". I forgot all about
it's an FSEXT.

(I think I'm getting really dumb of lately.)

> anything else through. The code in CVS is buggy, because it does not pass
> things through, when it should. Hence the patch.

I've no doubt about that. Thanks!


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -