[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070103192616.GA3299@janus>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:26:16 +0100
From: Frank van Maarseveen <frankvm@...nkvm.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: Jan Harkes <jaharkes@...cmu.edu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Finding hardlinks
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:17:34PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:04:06AM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >>
> >>I didn't hardlink directories, I just patched stat, lstat and fstat to
> >>always return st_ino == 0 --- and I've seen those failures. These failures
> >>are going to happen on non-POSIX filesystems in real world too, very
> >>rarely.
> >
> >I don't want to spoil your day but testing with st_ino==0 is a bad choice
> >because it is a special number. Anyway, one can only find breakage,
> >not prove that all the other programs handle this correctly so this is
> >kind of pointless.
> >
> >On any decent filesystem st_ino should uniquely identify an object and
> >reliably provide hardlink information. The UNIX world has relied upon this
> >for decades. A filesystem with st_ino collisions without being hardlinked
> >(or the other way around) needs a fix.
>
> ... and that's the problem --- the UNIX world specified something that
> isn't implementable in real world.
Sure it is. Numerous popular POSIX filesystems do that. There is a lot of
inode number space in 64 bit (of course it is a matter of time for it to
jump to 128 bit and more)
--
Frank
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists