From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:24:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m0FMOI78010797 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:24:20 -0800 Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BFBFA522B04 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (prod.aconex.com [203.89.192.138]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id pp0bD6ULC8UZuxxt for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:24:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Question related to XFS sync , especially fsync From: Nathan Scott Reply-To: nscott@aconex.com In-Reply-To: <478CCEAC.9010008@sandeen.net> References: <20080114224245.GT155259@sgi.com> <478CCEAC.9010008@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:26:52 +1100 Message-Id: <1200436012.9463.184.camel@edge.scott.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Gopala Krishna Cc: Eric Sandeen , David Chinner , Chris Wedgwood , Matthias Schniedermeyer , "Olaf Fra;czyk" , Andi Kleen , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:18 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > I have lot of code getting in to that. To explain that I have to go > through > > that complex part of the code to explain in detail. > > > > Basically once we get indoe number for a given file from the > available > > system call, we only depending upon the XFS layout and it's > structure. We > > are reading super block from a particular disk offset and > calculating > > address for inode offset and its address on the disk and reading > directly > > from the disk offset. We are totally depending on XFS on disk > layout. > > Can I ask why you are doing this? :) > This would be good to know. If you absolutely must use inode numbers instead of path names, you should use the "by-handle" interface (like xfsdump, xfs_fsr, etc) and not use the ondisk structures directly - doing so is always "broken by design" and you'll get little sympathy here for doing so. :) cheers. -- Nathan