From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Jul 22 12:15:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461C437B400 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1878343E65 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:15:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id EF64AAE272; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:15:22 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: fs@freebsd.org Subject: rename hardlinks "works" on FreeBSD, but no-op on others Message-ID: <20020722191522.GA77219@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org A coworker recently asked me (slightly modified): ...it says that if you rename file A to file B where A and B are hard links to each other, it does nothing. I thought this was kind of odd so I tried the experiment on Linux and sure enough it does the same there: no error and both A and B still exist after the rename. I tried the same experiment on Solaris 8 and got the same effect. I tried the same experiment on FreeBSD and it did the obviously correct thing and removed the old name. What gives? It seems that we do the right thing, however: 1) are we standards compliant? 2) just for curiousity, why would others silently fail? thanks, -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] [#bsdcode/efnet/irc.prison.net] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message