[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1Oldyc-00062G-Ab@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:26:26 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com>
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, jack@...e.cz, agruen@...e.de,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jblunck@...e.de, hch@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/38] fallthru: ext2 fallthru support
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote:
> > - hard links to make sure a separate inode is not necessary for each
> > whiteout/fallthrough entry
>
> The problem with hard links is that you run into hard link limits. I
> don't think we can do hard links for whiteouts and fallthrus. Each
> whiteout or fallthru will cost an inode if we implement them as
> extended attributes. This cost has to be balanced against the cost of
> implementing them as dentries, which is mainly code complexity in
> individual file systems.
get_unlinked_inode() is a great idea. But I feel that individual
inodes for each fallthrough is excessive. It'll make the first
readdir() really really expensive and wastes a lot of disk and memory
for no good reason.
Not sure how to fix the hard link limits problem though...
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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