HFS+ support (read-only)
Timothy A. Seufert
tas at mindspring.com
Sat Jun 8 05:16:31 EST 2002
At 11:25 PM -0800 6/6/02, Ethan Benson wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 03:50:31PM -0700, Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
>> The OS needs
>> a database of all files that are hardlinked, with full reverse
>> mappings, so that whenever a file with hardlinks is unlinked it has
>> enough information to replace one of the hardlinks with the real file.
>i don't know about that, maybe. to be honest it would not surprise me
>if apple just let that break.
Oh, come on. :) I just tested it, they didn't let it break.
>> (For efficiency I'd want a flag bit in the metadata of each file to
>> indicate that it has been hardlinked, to avoid searching the table
>> when deleting files that have no hardlinks. For even more
>> efficiency, a direct pointer to the table entry.)
>you cannot use the word efficient to describe this puke inducing
>kludge. the efficient way is to design the filesystem properly to
>begin with, which apple did not do with HFS+.
The kludge part is trying to retrofit features like hardlinks into a
FS which wasn't designed to naturally support them (as classic UNIX
inode FS designs do). Aside from that I see nothing wrong with the
basic design of HFS+.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev