I suspect that the stats for symlinks > 60 but < ~150 chars is only a very small fraction of files. If the code complexity of handling this is very small (i.e. it is just handled as a natural consequence of writing "data" of this size) then I would be OK with it. Otherwise, I expect the code and maintenance overhead of supporting the 0.01% (?) of symlinks that are this size is probably lot worth it. People could check what the actual usage is via the "fsstats" tool at: http://www.pdsi-scidac.org/fsstats/ There is also data there already that reports stats on symlink length, but it is mostly HPC filesystems and it might be better to redo this with a desktop-type workload. Cheers, Andreas >> On Feb 17, 2014, at 17:52, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:07:17PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: >> >> I am not sure whether or not we need to enable inline_data for a fast >> symlink inode. Obviously, it brings a benefit that after enabling >> inline_data feature for a fast symlink we can get more space to store >> the path. But it seems that the original patch doesn't want to do this >> Another solution for fixing this bug is to disable inline_data for a >> fast symlink. Any comment? > > Well, if we are using inline data, and we have a symlink which is > longer than 60 bytes, but less than extra space available for an > inline data, it seems like a good thing to support. > > The downside is that it is a bit more complication to add the kernel's > code in both the kernel as well as e2fsprogs, but it doesn't seem that > bad. > > So I don't have any objections to adding this functionality. What do > other folks think? > > - Ted -- 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
