Jonathan Briggs wrote: >On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:44 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>Hubert Chan wrote: >> >> >>>And a question: is it feasible to store, for each inode, its parent(s), >>>instead of just the hard link count? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Ooh, now that is an interesting old idea I haven't considered in 20 >>years.... makes fsck more robust too.... >> >> > >Hey, sounds like the idea I proposed a couple months ago of storing the >path names in each file, instead of in directories. Only better, since >each path component isn't text but a link instead. > >It still has the performance and locking problem of having to update >every child file when moving a directory tree to a new parent. On the >other hand, maybe the benefit is worth the cost. > > Oh no, don't store the whole path, store just the parent list. This will make fsck more robust in the event that the directory gets clobbered by hardware error.
I don't think it affects the cost of detecting cycles though, I think it only makes fsck more robust. Hans
