Re: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback

Denis Vlasenko (vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua)
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:19:17 -0200

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.

--
vda
-
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/