[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: unsigned short for nlink_t
On Mon, 06 Dec 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
>On 5 Dec 1999, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> > Physical layout of many filesystems doesn't support that. Ditto
>> > for NFS, IIRC.
>> Both the NFSv2 and v3 protocols allow an unsigned 32-bit value for
>> 'nlinks'.
>Oops. Sorry. IOW, Sun decide that there was nothing around to pack
>together with nlinks and with 32bit alignment... Anyway, neither s5fs, nor
>FFS and its derivatives (UFS, ext2) have enough place in inode for that
>stuff. So...

Ext2 is currently being worked on significantly. The new one may be called
Ext3 or Journalled Ext2. In any case it's a significant change and changing
the storage of links should be possible.
ReiserFS is developing much faster and this could probably be added in a
smallish amount of time.
What about NetApp Filers and other NFS serving devices. I would expect a
NetApp to be able to do this - unless the client was a Linux machine...

As work is currently in progress on 64bit files, 32bit link counts would
probably be a good idea too. These changes should fit well together because
many of the same system calls have to be changed...

The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit
consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with
Microsoft's self-interest.
-- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, U.S. District Judge

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.030 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site