On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 01:24:07AM +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote:
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...
Do a hardlink if you can create a hard link, otherwise use a fresh inode
and use that for the next hardlink(s).
Bleah! Then you have a code path that is only tested when you hit
LINK_MAX. Sounds like a recipe for bugs for me.
You'll also hit it while creating the first whiteout, maybe on creating
the first whiteout since mounting, and on filesystems not supporting
hardlinks (are there some that support attributes but not hardlinks?).
Maybe it will be possible to create immutable whiteout inodes, too.
--
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
