[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Drawbacks of implementing undelete entirely in user space
On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Shinanyaku wrote:
> I think I heard this mentioned before, but what about the ext2 drivers
> moving an unlinked file to /.wastebasket (like /lost+found) and
> having user-space programs manage it? Have the default to not
> happening, and if you decide to change that, then you are responsbile
> for managing it (ie, running the daemons).
> Shin!

Yes, that's what I orignally thought, but not about where to put the
files. The all in the kernel solution would be more ellagent tho, with
the saved files being removable as and when the space is required.

You have to rember that the Win95's solution is fine for Win95's kind of
multiuser (ie any number of users, one at a time), because if your out of
disk space, it doesn't effect the other users, and only your self for a
short time (until you empty the waste basket).

Sure keep the undelete managment out of kernelspace, but having the
freeing when space is tight is good, and should be kept in kernelspace,
the rest should go in userspace, as part of various utils (ie the
quotaing of undelete space used should go into quota, and ....)
PGP key pass phrase forgotten, \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence
again :( | initiated.
/ This space is intentionally left
| blank, apart from this text ;-)

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.087 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site