Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:38:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:37:57 -0500 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:64261 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:37:42 -0500 Message-ID: <3C7BB9A3.30408@evision-ventures.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:36:51 +0100 From: Martin Dalecki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020205 X-Accept-Language: en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Fedyk CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext3 and undeletion In-Reply-To: <05cb01c1be1e$c490ba00$1a01a8c0@allyourbase> <20020225172048.GV20060@matchmail.com> <02022518330103.01161@grumpersII> <20020226160544.GD4393@matchmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > True, and it could to tricks like listing space used for undelete as "free" > in addition to dynamic garbage collection. > > Though, with a daemon checking the dirs often, or using Daniel's idea of a > socket between unlink() in glibc and an undelete daemon could work quite > similairly. > > Also, there wouldn't be any interaction with filesystem internals, and > userspace would probably work better with non-posix type filesystems (vfat, > hfs, etc) too. > > IOW, there seems to be little gain to having an kernelspace solution. > IMNSHO everyone thinking about undeletion in Linux should be sentenced to 1 year of VMS usage and asked then again if he still think's that it's a good idea... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/