[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87628bjvwb.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:14:28 +0900
From: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@...il.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fat: fix ESTALE errors
Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@...il.com> writes:
>> (I assume this issue == orphaned inode issue).
>>
>> ext* doesn't have this issue. If ext* made orphaned inode, ext* doesn't
>> delete inode from inode table until calling iput() from last referencer.
>>
>> In FAT case, FAT inode is embedded into dir entry. So, if unlinked inode
>> (then orphaned inode is detached (fat_detach())), FAT deletes inode (dir
>> entry) from dir.
>
> Could be possible to not delete it?
It should be deletable on linux. Because many apps are assuming
orphaned inode works.
> I mean using a special value for this case, mark delete (using 0xe5 as
> first character) but put for instance creation month to be egal to 15.
>
> This entry will be therefore be keep and not overwritten by successive
> file creation.
>
> At least this solve the file deleted issue (not the rename issue unfortunatly)
I assume you are saying to prevent creation somehow, not deletion. Yes, it
is possible though, it would give additional overhead and complexity to us.
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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