so there are these hundreds of message files, and when one is read, a
new link to The Markfile appears with a similar name as the read file?
Is that right?
if the point is to save inodes by making a directory entry that's a
hardlink to something already existing, why not link to the message
file?
On 08/21/2011 11:13 AM, John Fremlin wrote:
It seems a priori that there should not be any need for more than 256
names for the same file in the same directory. However, the GNUS
mailreader's nnmaildir backend uses hardlinks to mark email messages
read, and instead of creating a separate inode
Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com writes:
On 08/21/2011 11:13 AM, John Fremlin wrote:
[...]
This restriction causes btrfs-convert 0.19 to crash out with a segfault and
no helpful message: something like btrfs-convert: segfault at
cfb25fb9 ip 0040f9f1 sp 7fffddefb398 error 6 in
On 08/22/2011 12:05 PM, John Fremlin wrote:
Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com writes:
On 08/21/2011 11:13 AM, John Fremlin wrote:
[...]
This restriction causes btrfs-convert 0.19 to crash out with a segfault and
no helpful message: something like btrfs-convert: segfault at
cfb25fb9 ip
It seems a priori that there should not be any need for more than 256
names for the same file in the same directory. However, the GNUS
mailreader's nnmaildir backend uses hardlinks to mark email messages
read, and instead of creating a separate inode for each marked
message, uses a hardlink to a
JF == John Fremlin j...@fremlin.org writes:
JF instead of creating a separate inode for each marked message, uses a
JF hardlink to a single markfile. This means that there maybe thousands
JF of hardlinks to the same inode in a single directory.
And that behaviour is not limited to gnus. Many
