lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback
john slee wrote:
> [ cc list trimmed ]
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 03:19:17PM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
>
>>Why do we have to stich to concept of inode *numbers*?
>>Because there are inode numbers in traditional Unix filesystems?
>>
>
> probably because there is software out there relying on them being
> numbers and being able to do 'if(inum_a == inum_b) { same_file(); }'
> as appropriate. i can't think of a use for such a construct other than
> preserving hardlinks in archives (does tar do this?) but i'm sure there
> are others
>
> like much of unix it's been there forever and has become such a natural
> concept in people's heads that to change it now seems unthinkable.
>
> much like the missing e in creat().
>

No. Not supplying inode numbers would break unix semantics.
The kernel (and binary loader) depends on a unique key:

major:minor device number + inode


Otherwise: how to decide if a shared object is the same?
checksuming? ;-)

But what would be different with characters? Despite more complexity?


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans