Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:12:37 +0200 | From | Peter Wächtler <> | Subject | Re: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback |
| |
john slee wrote: > [ cc list trimmed ] > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 03:19:17PM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > >>Why do we have to stich to concept of inode *numbers*? >>Because there are inode numbers in traditional Unix filesystems? >> > > probably because there is software out there relying on them being > numbers and being able to do 'if(inum_a == inum_b) { same_file(); }' > as appropriate. i can't think of a use for such a construct other than > preserving hardlinks in archives (does tar do this?) but i'm sure there > are others > > like much of unix it's been there forever and has become such a natural > concept in people's heads that to change it now seems unthinkable. > > much like the missing e in creat(). >
No. Not supplying inode numbers would break unix semantics. The kernel (and binary loader) depends on a unique key:
major:minor device number + inode
Otherwise: how to decide if a shared object is the same? checksuming? ;-)
But what would be different with characters? Despite more complexity?
- 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/
| |