Nikita Danilov wrote:
>Hans Reiser writes:
>
>
>Having 64 bit inode numbers is good, but we *can* live without them:
>currently inode hash table can store inodes with identical inode
>numbers, provided they can be distinguished by find_actor. Inode numbers
>are just first fast guess during table scan, if they coincide,
>find_actor is used.
>
Nikita is entirely correct, 32 bits of inode number hash is plenty.
64k blocks remain a solution whose potential drain on memory bandwidth
worries me.
Hans
-
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 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 21:00:15 EST