From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 4 May 2001 16:09:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 4 May 2001 16:09:28 -0400 Received: from roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com ([24.169.102.121]:45318 "EHLO roc-24-169-102-121.rochester.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 May 2001 16:09:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:08:22 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: Andreas Dilger cc: Linux kernel development list Subject: Re: Maximum files per Directory Message-ID: <392230000.989006902@tiny> In-Reply-To: <200105041915.f44JFNeM024068@webber.adilger.int> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, May 04, 2001 01:15:22 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: > Chris writes: >> On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger >> wrote: >> > I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory i_nlink count. >> > If you exceed 64536 links in a directory, it reverts to "1" and no >> > longer tracks the link count. >> >> Correct. The link count isn't used at all when deciding if the directory >> is empty (we use the size instead), so we can just lie to VFS if someone >> tries to make tons of subdirs. > > For that matter, ext2 doesn't use the link count on directories to > determine if they are empty either, so it shouldn't be too hard to do the > same with the ext2 indexed-directory code. Is there a reason that > reiserfs chose to have "large number of directories" represented by "1" > and not "LINK_MAX+1"? > find and a few others consider a link count of 1 to mean there is no link count tracking being done. -chris