[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/09/30]
Somebody claiming to be Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 01:36:05PM -0500, Luke Kanies wrote: > > > They're hard links (you'll have to look that one up). A little known > > aspect of the output of ls -al is that it lists the number of hard links > > to a file, and directories (almost) always have >=2, because one is the > > I realise that this is off topic for hating (and I will be hated by some > for this) but when doesn't a directory have a hard link count >= 2? > [on a filing system that doesn't cause all directories to report a link count > of 1, as I believe is the case for most Unix mounted CDs] > > .. of / is a link to itself, so it is always >= 2, and that's the obvious one > covered. When the last filesystem link to it is gone but it hasn't gone away because some process is still using it: -------- dave@hct-cvs:~ (0) $ mkdir foo dave@hct-cvs:~ (0) $ cd foo dave@hct-cvs:~/foo (0) $ ls -ld . drwxr-xr-x 2 dave users 4096 Sep 30 15:15 ./ dave@hct-cvs:~/foo (0) $ echo 'rmdir foo just happened from ~ in another shell' rmdir foo just happened from ~ in another shell dave@hct-cvs:~/foo (0) $ ls -ld . drwxr-xr-x 0 dave users 0 Sep 30 15:15 ./ dave@hct-cvs:~/foo (0) $ -------- ObHate: Filesystems that can't handle use-counting like this and don't let you do anything with a file or directory that some other process (not easily identified, usually) has open. dave -- Dave Vandervies dj3vande@xxxxxx.xxx Plan your future! Make God laugh!There's stuff above here
Generated at 16:00 on 04 Oct 2005 by mariachi 0.52