Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Mar 1999 21:18:35 -0800 (PST) | From | <> | Subject | Re: EXT2_UNRM_FL |
| |
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:26:46 +1100 > From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au> > > (d) why not do it in userspace anyway? I did that years ago, although > I "moved" files to /tmp, but it would be easy enough to move to a > garbage/$LOGNAME directory on the same FS. > > Absolutely, agreed. As I said earlier, there are plenty of user-space > "rm" replacements, and doing it in the kernel is almost certainly not > worth the pain. > > It might be worth it for the kernel to add a wakeup to the undelete > daemon telling it that space is low and it should remove some of the > deleted files, but I'd want to see how well a strategy of polling every > minute works (or doesn't work) before deciding whether the extra kernel > bloat was worth it. > one thing I am concerned is the those 'rm' replacements does not cover all the cases. For example, you can call 'unlink' directly from c/perl program, which will not go through 'rm'. If you really want undelete freature, I think it should be done a little higher level than, replacing 'rm'. hrmm that makes me wonder.. when you overwrite a file, does the kernel 'unlink' the file first and assign a new inode?
Ji Lee
- 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/
| |