On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:24:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > 0 0: ext*, xfs, jfs, reiserfs, ocfs2, gfs2, nilfs, exofs, udf, ubifs, > minix, sysv, ufs, msdos, vfat, hfs+ > 0 1: ramfs, shmem, hugetlbfs, jffs2, omfs, hfs[*], apparently nfs as well > [*] yes, different from hfs+; the code is clearly broken, since it simply > does unlink() on target, without even verifying that it's empty. And > yes, it's trivial fs corruption... Actually, hfs turns out to be 0 0 as well; it *is* broken (lacks check for target being empty), but when the target is empty it's doing the right thing. jffs2 and ramfs-based ones do 0 1 - confirmed by direct experiment. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
