[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext2_new_block() behaviour
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?" -- Dogbert
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 12:52    [W:0.036 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site