Re: [PATCH for testing] cow behaviour for hard links

From: Jörn Engel (joern_at_wohnheim.fh-wedel.de)
Date: 03/13/04

  • Next message: Sam Ravnborg: "Re: Bloat report 2.6.3 -> 2.6.4" 
    Date:	Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:14:33 +0100
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>

    On Sat, 13 March 2004 14:43:30 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
    >
    > I do not know your current design, but...
    >
    > In ideal world there would be no COW links. System would
    > magically detect that you are doing cp -a, and would link
    > at individual block level.
    >
    > Well, that would be probably too fs-specific. But introducing copyfile()
    > syscall, which would just link the inodes if underlying fs
    > supported it might be good start. On first
    > write into one
    > of linked files copy
    > would be done...

    On second thought, I already have introduced copyfile() in a way - the
    link() syscall is hijacked for exactly that purpose and my ugly flag
    multiplexes between them. Yeah, ugly as hell, but enough to get
    started and test things.

    Once the data structures are clear and at least one filesystem can
    deal with it, things should be stable enough to think about the user
    interface more seriously.

    Jörn 

    -- 
The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.
-- John Powell
-
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/
  • Next message: Sam Ravnborg: "Re: Bloat report 2.6.3 -> 2.6.4"

    Relevant Pages