From: Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:56:38 +0400
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:48:58AM +0200, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > Does the internal reiserfs nlink value translate directly
> > to what stat() puts in st_nlink?
> > It really doesn't matter. Even if you have some huge value that can't
> > be represented in st_nlink, you can report to the user that st_nlink
> > is NLINK_MAX.
> > This is one possible solution to this whole problem.
>
> And a pretty straightforward one, too. Convert the internal reiserfs
> link stuff to an unsigned short, find NLINK_MAX using the code I posted
Too bad it is 32bit nlink field in on disk format ;)
We're only talking about what the user is told is the
nlink value, not what you happen to compute and put/get
from disk.
Your nlink can be legitimately 128-bits if you want, it
still can be made to work :-)
> last night (or maybe simply grab it from userspace includes) and add
> a check to your stat() code to return NLINK_MAX if necessary.
Ok, I think I will rework it to something sensible, because current code is
somewhat a mess and corrupt correct nlink value on overflows. Hm.
Ok.
Franks a lot,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:24 EST