lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
Subject[PATCH 2/2] Documentation: path-lookup - update externel refs

As gmane is no longer reliable, use lkml.org

Section numbers used by the open group seem to have changed!

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
---
Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
index bba1fef066a1..c5987d1c5fc7 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ pathname that is just slashes have a final component. If it does
exist, it could be "``.``" or "``..``" which are handled quite differently
from other components.

-.. _POSIX: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_12
+.. _POSIX: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_13

If a pathname ends with a slash, such as "``/tmp/foo/``" it might be
tempting to consider that to have an empty final component. In many
@@ -964,7 +964,7 @@ successfully - the error ``ELOOP`` must be returned. Loops can be
detected without imposing limits, but limits are the simplest solution
and, given the second reason for restriction, quite sufficient.

-.. _outlined recently: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1934390/focus=1934550
+.. _outlined recently: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/20/644

The second reason was `outlined recently`_ by Linus:

@@ -1249,7 +1249,7 @@ Symlinks are different it seems. Both reading a symlink (with ``readlink()``)
and looking up a symlink on the way to some other destination can
update the atime on that symlink.

-.. _clearest statement: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_08
+.. _clearest statement: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_09

It is not clear why this is the case; POSIX has little to say on the
subject. The `clearest statement`_ is that, if a particular implementation
--
2.14.0.rc0.dirty
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-05 00:05    [W:0.099 / U:3.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site