From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: topics for the file system mini-summit Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: <447EE349.3040008@linux.intel.com> References: <44762552.8000906@emc.com> <20060601021908.GL10420@goober> <20060601024247.GB32143@parisc-linux.org> <20060601032418.GM10420@goober> <20060601124517.GC32143@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Valerie Henson , Ric Wheeler , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from fmr18.intel.com ([134.134.136.17]:20191 "EHLO orsfmr003.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750910AbWFAMx7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:53:59 -0400 To: Matthew Wilcox In-Reply-To: <20060601124517.GC32143@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:24:18PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: >> Actually, the continuation inode is in B. When we create a link in >> directory A to file C, a continuation inode for directory A is created >> in domain B, and a block containing the link to file C is allocated >> inside domain B as well. So there is no continuation inode in domain >> A. >> >> That being said, this idea is at the hand-waving stage and probably >> has many other (hopefully non-fatal) flaws. Thanks for taking a look! > > OK, so we really have two kinds of continuation inodes, and it might be > sensible to name them differently. We have "here's some extra data for > that inode over there" and "here's a hardlink from another domain". I > dub the first one a 'continuation inode' and the second a 'shadow inode'. nonono the "hardlink" is in a directory inode, and that *directory* has a continuation for the dentry that constitutes the hardlink. But that dentry is "local" to the data. so the directory ends up being split over the domains > Another advantage to this is that inodes never refer to blocks outside > their zone, so we can forget about all this '64-bit block number' crap. exactly the point!