Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:24:18PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
Actually, the continuation inode is in B. When we create a link in
directory A to file C, a continuation inode for directory A is created
in domain B, and a block containing the link to file C is allocated
inside domain B as well. So there is no continuation inode in domain
A.
That being said, this idea is at the hand-waving stage and probably
has many other (hopefully non-fatal) flaws. Thanks for taking a look!
OK, so we really have two kinds of continuation inodes, and it might be
sensible to name them differently. We have "here's some extra data for
that inode over there" and "here's a hardlink from another domain". I
dub the first one a 'continuation inode' and the second a 'shadow inode'.
nonono
the "hardlink" is in a directory inode, and that *directory* has a continuation
for the dentry that constitutes the hardlink. But that dentry is "local" to the data.
so the directory ends up being split over the domains
Another advantage to this is that inodes never refer to blocks outside
their zone, so we can forget about all this '64-bit block number' crap.
exactly the point!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
