Hello, On 01/12/2010 10:06 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> 64k is too small. 10 gig interfaces can currently service 50-100k users, >> each of which requires their own network device. > > 64k is the point at which I stop returning a userful nlink number to > userspace, sysfs directories can still scale to any size. > > I could legitimately always return nlink == 1, and all userspace > utilities that I know of would be fine, but I am trying to be a bit > more polite than that. I don't think it's more polite. It's more error-prone. 64k is a limit where breach would be rare enough to be unexpected but would still happen on corner cases. I don't know what would be the end result of incorrect nlink but it's far better to have something which behaves consistently than to have something which flips its meaning after reaching certain rare but still quite possible limit. If nlink is something we can ignore, just set it to 1 for all sysfs files. If nlink must be kept correct, use 32bit limit and fail to create more. > I don't see the link count as interesting enough to store more than > 16bits for it. Even with 32bits of storage for nlink sysfs would have > to have to handle the rollover case as I am doing now. So I don't > see any advantage to storing more bits. I really don't think reiserfs's example is a good one to follow especially with significantly lowered limit. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
