From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932295AbWA0HRq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:17:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932337AbWA0HRq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:17:46 -0500 Received: from dsl093-040-174.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.40.174]:19641 "EHLO aria.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932295AbWA0HRq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:17:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:17:49 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Heiko Carstens Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] debugfs: hard link count wrong Message-ID: <20060127071749.GA13924@suse.de> References: <20060126141142.GA11599@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20060127032513.GA12559@suse.de> <20060127055607.GA9331@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20060127063804.GA4680@suse.de> <20060127070423.GB9331@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060127070423.GB9331@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 08:04:23AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > > Device: eh/14d Inode: 15528 Links: 2 > > > Links should be 3, I thought? For an empty directory it's 2 and as soon as > > > you create a new directory in there it should be increased by 1. Therefore > > > it should be 3. Or am I missing something? > > > > Yeah, I think you are correct. But I don't see where in the debugfs > > code I messed this up... > > > > In debugfs_mkdir() we increment the parent i_nlink properly if we create > > the new subdirectory, and based on other implementations like this > > (usbfs), that logic seems to be correct. > > > > Unless something is odd with creating a directory in the root of the fs. > > Does the subdirectory you have created have the proper number of links? > > Yes, everything below the debug directory itself seems to be ok. > > > > Btw.: my find version: "GNU find version 4.2.20". > > Hm, newer versions of find don't complain about this? > > The latest version I could find at http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/findutils/ > is 4.2.27 which still complains. No, idea from where you got the 4.2.30 :) I'm running 4.3.0, not 4.2.30. I don't know where it came from either, gentoo's unstable tree has it, and caused me to download it from somewhere when I built it :) thanks, greg k-h