On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote: > > - hard links to make sure a separate inode is not necessary for each > > whiteout/fallthrough entry > > The problem with hard links is that you run into hard link limits. I > don't think we can do hard links for whiteouts and fallthrus. Each > whiteout or fallthru will cost an inode if we implement them as > extended attributes. This cost has to be balanced against the cost of > implementing them as dentries, which is mainly code complexity in > individual file systems. get_unlinked_inode() is a great idea. But I feel that individual inodes for each fallthrough is excessive. It'll make the first readdir() really really expensive and wastes a lot of disk and memory for no good reason. Not sure how to fix the hard link limits problem though... Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
