On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:12:37PM +0100, dexen deVries wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday 19 of March 2011 23:01:57 you wrote: > > BSD traditionally save some inodes/blocks for the superuser. Maybe some > > blocks could be reserved for the nilfs_cleanerd to work with? even if only > > a few? Depending on the uid/guid of the program? > > As for reserved blocks, that's an ugly solution IMHO. It is, but its also a service to `root'. It gives a rooted user the possibility to use > 100% of reported disc space thus enabling him to clean up stuff, move stuff around and making more free space. It may not be the best solution but at least `root' is able to fix problems on a full disc! > And so is delete-proofing the on-disk `.nilfs' file. But perhaps the > `.nilfs' could be made a virtual file, maintained by the NILFS2 driver > rather than a plain on-disk object? You are right about the `.nilfs'. The problem with looking up /mnt/ is that it (might) return the node /mnt on the root FS and not the NiLFS root `/mnt/.' . I don't know how linux handles such cases but if `/mnt/.' does return the NiLFS root node then why not let NiLFS use that node instead of the /mnt/.nilfs node? So IMHO the .nilfs file is a hack in itself :-D With regards, Reinoud -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
