Messages in this thread | | | From | Denis Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback | Date | Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:19:17 -0200 |
| |
On 29 April 2002 09:59, Nikita Danilov wrote: > Anton Altaparmakov writes: > > Al, would you agree with NTFS using ->read_inode2 as well as ReiserFS? > > ->read_inode2 is a hack. And especially so is having both ->read_inode > and ->read_inode2. iget() interface was based on the assumption that > inodes can be located (and identified) by inode number. It is not so at > least for the reiserfs and ->read_inode2 works around this by passing > "cookie" with information sufficient for file system to locate inode.
Why do we have to stich to concept of inode *numbers*? Because there are inode numbers in traditional Unix filesystems?
What about reiserfs? NTFS? Even plain old FAT have trouble simulating inode numbers for zero-length files.
Why? Because inode numbers (or lack of them) is fs implementation detail which unfortunately leaked into Linux VFS API.
Or maybe I am just stupid. -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |