Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:20:28 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Handling file forks in page cache? |
| |
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:04:17 +0100 > From: Steve Dodd <dirk@loth.demon.co.uk> > > iv) as Windows NT currently only uses the non-data forks for > metadata, store the data fork in the page cache as normal, and > read the metadata forks directly. This isn't entirely simple as > a lot of the metadata structures can be bigger than a single > block, but it should be do-able, right? I guess this is the > least nasty option, but I'd like comments.. > > At the risk of spawning the whole to-file-fork-or-not-to-file-fork flame > war.... I agree, of the four choices, this is the one which I think > makes the most sense.
If those metadata forks can't grow too hard... We might map them on the negative offsets (old BSD trick for indirect blocks - they also have per-inode page caches and indirect blocks are placed on the same cache; just on the negative offsets). The same would make sense for ext2, BTW.
- 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/
| |