[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback
On 29 April 2002 09:59, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Anton Altaparmakov writes:
> > Al, would you agree with NTFS using ->read_inode2 as well as ReiserFS?
> ->read_inode2 is a hack. And especially so is having both ->read_inode
> and ->read_inode2. iget() interface was based on the assumption that
> inodes can be located (and identified) by inode number. It is not so at
> least for the reiserfs and ->read_inode2 works around this by passing
> "cookie" with information sufficient for file system to locate inode.

Why do we have to stich to concept of inode *numbers*?
Because there are inode numbers in traditional Unix filesystems?

What about reiserfs? NTFS? Even plain old FAT have trouble simulating
inode numbers for zero-length files.

Why? Because inode numbers (or lack of them) is fs implementation detail
which unfortunately leaked into Linux VFS API.

Or maybe I am just stupid.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.143 / U:1.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site