1 Jan 2007 03:30
Re: Finding hardlinks
Nikita Danilov <nikita <at> clusterfs.com>
2007-01-01 02:30:30 GMT
2007-01-01 02:30:30 GMT
Mikulas Patocka writes: > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 19:14 +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> Why don't you rip off the support for colliding inode number from the > >> kernel at all (i.e. remove iget5_locked)? > >> > >> It's reasonable to have either no support for colliding ino_t or full > >> support for that (including syscalls that userspace can use to work with > >> such filesystem) --- but I don't see any point in having half-way support > >> in kernel as is right now. > > > > What would ino_t have to do with inode numbers? It is only used as a > > hash table lookup. The inode number is set in the ->getattr() callback. > > The question is: why does the kernel contain iget5 function that looks up > according to callback, if the filesystem cannot have more than 64-bit > inode identifier? Generally speaking, file system might have two different identifiers for files: - one that makes it easy to tell whether two files are the same one; - one that makes it easy to locate file on the storage. According to POSIX, inode number should always work as identifier of the first class, but not necessary as one of the second. For example, in(Continue reading)
RSS Feed