On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 12:35:53PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
....
> More or less random comments/questions:
....
> 4) I still think that indirect blocks may go into the page cache - that
> would further simplify truncate(). OTOH the method used by BSD (indirect
> block covering addresses from n to n+block_size*pointers_per_block gets
> an address -n, double indirect block covering the area from n to n+...
> gets -n-block_size, triple indirect - -n-2*block size) will be wasteful
> for situations when block size is smaller than page.
My LFS patches ( ftp://mea.tmt.tele.fi/linux/LFS/ ) do *allow* you to
do that, cache index is plus/minus 2G * 512 bytes. Just to support
that type of signed magic..
Earlier version was strictly 0 thru 4G of 512 byte blocks - unsigned.
...
> Comments?
/Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@sonera.fi>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/