Messages in this thread |  | | From | Andreas Dilger <> | Subject | Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext2_new_block() behaviour | Date | Fri, 5 Jan 2001 00:06:47 -0700 (MST) |
| |
Stephen, you write: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 05:31:12PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote: > > BTW, what inumber do you want for whiteouts? IIRC, we decided to use > > the same entry type as UFS does (14), but I don't remember what was > > the decision on inumber. UFS uses 1 for them, is it OK with you? > > 0 is used for padding, so 1 makes sense, yes.
Sorry, but what are whiteouts? Inode 1 in ext2 is the bad blocks inode, so it will never be used for a valid directory entry, but depending on what it is we may want to make sure e2fsck is OK with it as well.
Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |