Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:14:23 +0300 | | From | Matti Aarnio <> | | Subject | Re: [possible race in ext2] Re: how to write get_block? |
| |
Commenting only on a subset of Alexander's comments:
On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 12:35:53PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: .... > More or less random comments/questions: .... > 4) I still think that indirect blocks may go into the page cache - that > would further simplify truncate(). OTOH the method used by BSD (indirect > block covering addresses from n to n+block_size*pointers_per_block gets > an address -n, double indirect block covering the area from n to n+... > gets -n-block_size, triple indirect - -n-2*block size) will be wasteful > for situations when block size is smaller than page. My LFS patches ( ftp://mea.tmt.tele.fi/linux/LFS/ ) do *allow* you to do that, cache index is plus/minus 2G * 512 bytes. Just to support that type of signed magic..
Earlier version was strictly 0 thru 4G of 512 byte blocks - unsigned.
... > Comments?
/Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@sonera.fi>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |