[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070105131235.GB4662@ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:12:35 +0000
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!
> > > > 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.
>
> Well, sort of. Samefile without keeping fds open doesn't have any
> protection against the tree changing underneath between first
> registering a file and later opening it. The inode number is more
You only need to keep one-file-per-hardlink-group open during final
verification, checking that inode hashing produced reasonable results.
Pavel
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
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