Subject: Re: large inode numbers
To: Lucio De Re <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/16/2003 22:43:30
Thus spake Lucio De Re ("LDR> ") sometime Tomorrow...

LDR> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:23:14AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
LDR> > >
LDR> > > I thought that too, but: 0-sized files to not have a first block
LDR> > > number..
LDR> >
LDR> > Oh, feh.  Ok, back to the drawing board.
LDR> >
LDR> Huh?  Can't one reserve inode "0" for all empty files and offset all
LDR> other inodes from "1", say?  What am I missing in my ignorance?

1.  Inode '0' means the dirent is unallocated.

2.  Inode '1' is historically used for bad blocks; numerous old dump tapes
    assume that inode '2' is the first valid inode, so we are stuck with

3.  Having duplicate (dev,ino) pairs is Bad.  If we make all empty files
    as inode 0, that causes problems with things like tar and stuff.

[I thought that maybe having (FAT slot + 2) would be good, but my ignorance
must precede me.  I'm sure the more technoscenti are laughing at my idiocy.]

NetBSD: safe ports in a storm.