Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:25:46 -0500 | | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | | Subject | Re: VFS 64-bit clean |
| |
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:57:20 GMT From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
I would strongly recommend that we use i_faddr instead of i_dir_acl for this, since fragments are currently *completely* unused in all ext2fs variants, whereas there are patches waiting to be merged which use the acl fields.
I would agree with Albert Calahan that we should use i_dir_acl. We can make sure the patches don't break by using #define's for i_dir_acl.
I'm opposed to implementing fragments in ext2fs since we can get good performance even at smaller block sizes by using the intelligent IO clustering code, so there's no reason to go out of our way performing the amazing hack which is ffs fragments. If we don't care about fragments, then this field is completely open to our reuse.
I agree with you that we shouldn't ever do fragments, but rather improve our block allocation strategies and use extents to reduce the need for indirect blocks and just use small block sizes.
However, I'd prefer to keep i_faddr in reserve for some future extension when we really need the extra 32-bit field in the inode, since space in the inode rather precious. Albert is right that we'll never need directories greater than 2GB, so reusing i_dir_acl for non-directory inodes seems like the most efficient way to use that inode field.
- Ted
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
|  |