Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 3 May 2002 09:56:34 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback |
| |
Hi!
> I'll repeat myself. What if some advanced fs has no sensible way of > generating inode? Does it have to 'fake' it, just like [v]fat does it now? > (Yes, vfat is not 'advanced' fs, let's not discuss it...) > > The fact that minix,ext[23],etc has inode #s is an *implementation detail*. > Historically entrenched in Unix. > > Bad: > inum_a = inode_num(file1); > inum_b = inode_num(file2); > if(inum_a == inum_b) { same_file(); } > > Better: > if(is_hardlinked(file1,file2) { same_file(); } > > Yes, new syscal, blah, blah, blah... Not worth the effort, etc... > lets start a flamewar...
Its worse: You have 1000 files with same size, how do you find which are hardlinked? With inode_num() it is hashtable, doable with O(n). With syscall we are talking O(n^2). Pavel -- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |