On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:47:15PM +0000, Filipe David Manana wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 03:23:50PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >> It explains that having a correct hardlink number for directory is not > >> mandatory, but it doesn´t explain why BTRFS always has 1 in there instead > >> of the actual count of hardlinks. Is this an performance optimization for > >> BTRFS or are there any other reasons why BTRFS does it this way? > > > > I believe it's for performance reasons. New inodes do not update the > > parent directory metadata wrt link counts, compared to other filesystems > > that do that. > > Weird. Because creating a new inode implies adding the dentry to the > parent directory, which implies updating the directory's i_size. Ah right, sorry, I've missed that. -- 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
