[PATCH] Be specific about incorrect hardlink counts

[Daniel Drake]

Hi,

findutils-4.2.20 made me aware of the incorrect hardlink counts in /proc and 
I've been fixing them up.

Although find made me aware of the issue, the message it prints could be more 
useful: it doesn't show an accurate location of where the incorrect count 
exists (instead, it seems to use the path that you gave to find on the command 
line), and it would be nice if it could also report the hardlink count which 
it read (on pseudo-filesystems like /proc this isn't very static).

Please consider applying this.

Daniel

--- findutils-4.2.20/find/find.c.orig   2005-03-03 22:30:10.000000000 +0000
+++ findutils-4.2.20/find/find.c        2005-04-03 13:45:06.000000000 +0100
@@ -1811,8 +1811,8 @@ process_dir (char *pathname, char *name,
                   * doesn't really handle hard links with Unix semantics.
                   * In the latter case, -noleaf should be used routinely.
                   */
-                 error(0, 0, _("WARNING: Hard link count is wrong for %s: this 
may be a bug in your filesystem driver.  Automatically turning on find's 
-noleaf option.  Earlier results may have failed to include directories that 
should have been searched."),
-                       parent);
+                 error(0, 0, _("WARNING: Hard link count (%d) is wrong for %s: 
this may be a bug in your filesystem driver.  Automatically turning on find's 
-noleaf option.  Earlier results may have failed to include directories that 
should have been searched."),
+                       statp->st_nlink, pathname);
                  state.exit_status = 1; /* We know the result is wrong, now */
                  options.no_leaf_check = true; /* Don't make same
                                                   mistake again */