On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:30:03AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > But as I understand it, this means that the link got created, but the > system thinks that it wasn't, and link() returns a non-zero value. > > So, I also think that if link() returns 0, then all went well.
That was my reading too. :-) > Perhaps, but the sshfs(1) man page says: > [...] > If hard links don't work perfectly (can there be more serious errors > than the inode number?), it may be better to disable them. I agree. My goal here isn't to "support" sshfs as much as it is to prevent a disastrous link-creating infinite loop in Mutt; and to do so without making Mutt less safe. I don't like removing 20-year old safety checks, but I think it's okay to do so for the case where link() returns 0. I've been slow to act in order to give others a chance to chime in, and I greatly appreciate you doing so. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
