From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valerie Henson Subject: Re: [RFC] TileFS - a proposal for scalable integrity checking Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:56:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20070509185631.GA18778@nifty> References: <20070428220522.GN11166@waste.org> <20070429232349.GA19937@thunk.org> <20070430014042.GL11115@waste.org> <20070509075638.GJ12859@nifty> <17985.44441.177720.982683@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matt Mackall , Theodore Tso , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Nikita Danilov Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.21]:4768 "EHLO orsmga101.jf.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757119AbXEIS4T (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 14:56:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17985.44441.177720.982683@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:16:41PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > I guess I miss something. If chunkfs maintains "at most one continuation > per chunk" invariant, then continuation inode might end up with multiple > byte ranges, and to check that they do not overlap one has to read > indirect blocks (or some equivalent data-structure). You're right about needing to read the equivalent data-structure - for other reasons, each continuation inode will need an easily accessible list of byte ranges covered by that inode. (Sounds like, hey, extents!) The important part is that you don't have go walk all the indirect blocks or check your bitmap. -VAL