On 08/22/2011 12:05 PM, John Fremlin wrote: > Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 >>> ffffffffcfb25fb9 ip 000000000040f9f1 sp 00007fffddefb398 error 6 in >>> btrfs-convert[400000+21000]. >>> >>> Is there any plan to alleviate this unfortunate limit (or at least make >>> btrfs-convert give the location of the file which causes it to fail?). >> >> It's a disk format change, something we don't do lightly. > > It would indeed require a disk format change, and hardlinks are always > tiresome for FS designers ;-) > > I think however that the format change could be designed to only affect > people who sadly cannot at the moment use BTRFS because of this > limitation, and be more or less unnoticeable to other people. > > As James points out there are other applications that benefit from being > able to create many names for the same inode in the same directory, and > 256 is a very low limit! > > Could this at least be put on the list of things to change? Is there a > way to vote for it? > > And the fact that btrfs-convert crashes horribly could be fixed without a > disk-format change. . . It's on the list, but there are a lot of other more pressing things then to allow weird apps to do strange things with hardlinks. Thanks, Josef -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
