Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!std-unix
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (Andy Glew)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Unusual Filesystems and POSIX
Message-ID: <9027@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Sep-87 13:57:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.9027
Posted: Wed Sep 16 13:57:48 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 01:17:25 EDT
Sender: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Reply-To: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (Andy Glew)
Lines: 27
Approved: fletcher@sally.utexas.edu (Guest Moderator, Fletcher Mattox)

From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (Andy Glew)

I am wondering what aspects of the POSIX standard impose
constraints upon unusual implementations of the filesystem.

Eg. instead of UNIX's directories containing lists of names
and inodes, what about a filesystem that was basically just
a big hash table of the entire path - directories simply being
entries required to be present before subsidiary files are
created, not actually containing the names of subsidiary files.
	Is there anything in POSIX that would prevent this?

Eg2. is the extra level of indirection filename->inode required,
or is it possible simply to refuse links? And so on.


Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms.arpa

I always felt that disclaimers were silly and affected, but there are people
who let themselves be affected by silly things, so: my opinions are my own,
and not the opinions of my employer, or any other organisation with which I am
affiliated. I indicate my employer only so that other people may account for
any possible bias I may have towards my employer's products or systems.


Volume-Number: Volume 12, Number 24