Re: st_nlink of directory nodes in shadowfs

[Moritz Schulte]

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Posix is looser than this, as Roland points out, but absent a really
> good reason (and "it's a bother to code" is probably not a really good
> reason) we should provide consistent sane behavior.

Actually i cared about the performance aspect. If there are shadowed
directories, which contain _many_ entries and the user simply looks up
that directory in shadowfs, shadowfs would have to first read _all_
the directory entries of _all_ of the underlying directories just to
provide the 100% right st_nlink number.

        moritz
-- 
Moritz Schulte <moritz@chaosdorf.de> http://www.chaosdorf.de/moritz/
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like
the Hurd people." - Linus Torvalds.
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199