Perry Hutchison wrote:
Is the inclusion of VLNK here correct? I would think that only the target of the symlink should matter: if it happens to point onto a writable FS, the fact that the symlink itself is on a ROFS should not matter.
yes, it is correct. short symbolic links are stored in the inode itself, so if you modify a short link, you'll be modifying metadata, which is not allowed. it could be argued, that as long as the change is restricted to one inode, it could be tolerable, but moreover, if your short symbolic link is modified to be longer than fits in inode, a disk block will need to be allocated, which would involve a change to block map, which is certainly not desirable for read-only mounts. -- Deomid Ryabkov aka Rojer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 8025844
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
