| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Creation time in XFS |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:31:53 +1000 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20071002093822.GA24907@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200709302124.38164.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <470042DC.2040009@xxxxxxx> <p73ve9r6v3a.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071002092509.GF995458@xxxxxxx> <20071002093822.GA24907@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:38:22AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:25:10PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > I don't think it is at all currently: > > > > So what is the point? Forensic analysis? > > Windows wants it, so I guess they added when they had to bump the inode > version anyway in preparation of a user interface for samba. <groan> Can you point me to whatever list this was discussed on? This is exactly the sort of stuff that needs to be discussed on -fsdevel. > We probably > should do the same for XFS when bumping the inode version for the crcs. Perhaps. I don't really like the idea of adding unused fields to the on disk structure just in case it is needed in the future.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: REVIEW: xfs_reno, Russell Cattelan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: sync_blockdev in xfs_flush_device_work, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Creation time in XFS, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | PARTIAL TAKE 971186 - cleanup vnode useage in xfs_ioctl.c, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |