On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:43:35 -0500 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Which btw brings up another good argument - to make the tracing really > useful we need to have conventions. While the inode number seems to > be a realtively easy one printing the device is more difficult. XFS > just prints the raw major/minor to stay simple, ext4 has a > complicated ad-hoc cache of device names, and this one just prints > the superblock id string. I was just trying to stay compatible with blockdump, and it even makes sense ;) > > Of course for a user the name is a lot more meaninful, but also > relatively expensive to generate. Then again I'm not even sure how > the last pathname component only here is all that useful - it can't > be used to easily find the file. in my case it's not about finding the file, but finding the place in the application that is doing the writing. The last pathname component is more than enough for this.... > -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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
