[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070104225929.GC8243@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:59:29 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: matthew@....cx, bhalevy@...asas.com, arjan@...radead.org,
mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, jaharkes@...cmu.edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
nfsv4@...f.org
Subject: Re: Finding hardlinks
Hi!
> > > High probability is all you have. Cosmic radiation hitting your
> > > computer will more likly cause problems, than colliding 64bit inode
> > > numbers ;)
> >
> > Some of us have machines designed to cope with cosmic rays, and would be
> > unimpressed with a decrease in reliability.
>
> With the suggested samefile() interface you'd get a failure with just
> about 100% reliability for any application which needs to compare a
> more than a few files. The fact is open files are _very_ expensive,
> no wonder they are limited in various ways.
>
> What should 'tar' do when it runs out of open files, while searching
> for hardlinks? Should it just give up? Then the samefile() interface
> would be _less_ reliable than the st_ino one by a significant margin.
You need at most two simultenaously open files for examining any
number of hardlinks. So yes, you can make it reliable.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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