On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 12:08:37PM -0700, Brad Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:53:28PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote: > > Not all filesystems will necessarily be able to support relinking an > > orphan inode back into the filesystem. Some offlist feedback suggested > > that instead of overloading .link that relinking should be a separate > > file operation for this reason. > > > > Since .relink is a superset of .link make the VFS call .relink where > > possible and .link otherwise. > > > > The next commit will change ext3/4 to enable this operation. > > I may have missed something in one of these patches (patch 1 and any > original summary if there was one don't appear in my email), but > what is the point of the new operation? I didn't see any case that > treats one any different than the other. What is disallowed (and how) > for a driver which does not implement .relink but has .link? Did you get patch 3? It shows how ext3/ext4 add the ability to take an inode that has been unlinked, placed onto the orphan list, and relink it. Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
