Re: [PATCH v2] erofs-utils: update i_nlink stat for directories

From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>
To: Li GuiFu <bluce.lee@aliyun.com>
Cc: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] erofs-utils: update i_nlink stat for directories
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:34:39 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201205093439.GE2333547@xiangao.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a289b333-c1ef-02f2-9897-c69061053409@aliyun.com>

Hi Guifu,

On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 05:22:13PM +0800, Li GuiFu via Linux-erofs wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2020/12/5 17:16, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>
> > 
> > Previously, nlink of directories was treated as 1 for simplicity.
> > 
> > Since st_nlink for dirs is actually not well defined, nlink=1 seems
> > to pacify `find' (even without -noleaf option) and other utilities.
> > AFAICT, isofs, romfs and cramfs always set it to 1, Overlayfs sets
> > it to 1 conditionally, btrfs[1], ceph[2] and FUSE client historically
> > set it to 1.
> > 
> > The convention under unix is that it's # of subdirs including "."
> > and "..". This patch tries to follow such convention if possible to
> > optimize `find' performance since it's not quite hard for local fs.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20100124003336.GP23006@think
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20180521092729.17470-1-lhenriques@suse.com
> > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>
> > ---
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201205055732.14276-1-hsiangkao@aol.com
> > changes since v1:
> >  - update a DBG_BUGON statement suggestted by Guifu.
> > 
> >  lib/inode.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> It looks good
> Reviewed-by: Li Guifu <bluce.lee@aliyun.com>

Thanks for the review. I've applied all pending patches from experimental
to dev branch. Tonight, I'll update README for erofsfuse (if you have time,
kindly review it then, but I think I'm not going to wait for a long time)
and will release erofs-utils v1.2 this weekend since we already have many
commits and the release period has been somewhat longer than v1.0 ~ v1.1.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> Thanks,
> 