From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Aug 4 20:55:18 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B982914BF6 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:55:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au) Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10798; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:54:31 +1000 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:54:31 +1000 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199908050354.NAA10798@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, krentel@dreamscape.com Subject: Re: link counts in ext2fs are all 0 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> Link counts in ext2fs were broken by the soft updates changes (although >> soft updates are not implemented for ext2fs). Partial fix: > >I see. This happens even though I'm not using soft updates? Yes. >... And even the new ones appear correct if you wait long >enough (even without umount/mount). I guess that happens when the >vnode gets flushed out of memory? A bazillion sync's doesn't do it, >but unpacking a large tar file does. Yes. I mentioned umount/mount because it's the easiest way to ensure flushing of the vnode. >Should I consider the patch dangerous? Suppose I create a new file, It's probably harmless. >> ... Bugs like >> this show why ext2fs shouldn't use any ufs vnops. (I just noticed some >> related ones for chflags(2). > >I'm confused. Is your comment, "ext2fs shouldn't use any ufs vnops", >directed at developers (suggesting that ext2fs should be reorganized) >or at users? Developers. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message