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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST