[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: ext2 directory size bug (?)

On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:24:02AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> This is actually a feature. The directory does not get truncated.
> Arguably directories could be truncated when objects towards the end
> are removed; I believe UFS under Solaris might do this?
> An even better heuristic I like would allow repacking of a directory
> and truncation if you could safely half the size -- but I suspect
> locking issues might be hideous here.

Not really. Anything that modifies directories holds both ->i_sem and
->i_zombie, lookups hold ->i_sem and emptiness checks (i.e. victim in
rmdir and overwriting rename) hold ->i_zombie, readdir holds both.

So we could even play with punching holes in them - very easy to do when
you do ext2_delete_entry(). I've done that on directories-in-pagecache
system, but decided that I don't want to deal with (bogus) warnings from
earlier kernels (they would do the right thing, but they would complain
loudly). Truncating is a piece of cake. Repacking is not a good idea,
though, since you are risking massive corruption in case of dirty shutdown
in the wrong moment.

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 12:51    [W:0.035 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site