Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote:

quoted text
>> >  - hard links to make sure a separate inode is not necessary for each
>> >    whiteout/fallthrough entry
>> 
>> The problem with hard links is that you run into hard link limits.  I
>> don't think we can do hard links for whiteouts and fallthrus.  Each
>> whiteout or fallthru will cost an inode if we implement them as
>> extended attributes.  This cost has to be balanced against the cost of
>> implementing them as dentries, which is mainly code complexity in
>> individual file systems.

Not knowing the details, I'd suggest to implement a generic function to
create an attributed inode and let the fs override it to create an
unlinked-file-dentry instead.

Benefit: All fs supporting extended attributes will be able to support
whiteout. If the fs has other means of supporting whiteout, they may fake
the attribute.

Possible problems:
- Having two ways of reporting a whiteout? Or can it be reported using a
  (static) fake inode?
- How do you un-whiteout while (not) having an overlaying fs?

quoted text
> get_unlinked_inode() is a great idea.  But I feel that individual
> inodes for each fallthrough is excessive.  It'll make the first
> readdir() really really expensive and wastes a lot of disk and memory
> for no good reason.
> 
> Not sure how to fix the hard link limits problem though...

Do a hardlink if you can create a hard link, otherwise use a fresh inode
and use that for the next hardlink(s).


--
unsubscribe notice
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/