From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 23 06:23:11 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5315E37B404; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org (melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org
	[62.212.105.185])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0B37443F75; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from thomas@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: by melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 572EE2C3D1; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:23:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:23:08 +0200
From: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20030423132308.GA12764@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
References: <3EA686D9.50808@tcoip.com.br>
	<16017.1051101342@critter.freebsd.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <16017.1051101342@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-message-flag: WARNING! Using Outlook can damage your computer.
cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: UFS2 now the default creation type on 5.0-CURRENT
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:23:11 -0000

Le 2003-04-23, Poul-Henning Kamp écrivait :

> No it does not.  Inodes are preallocated, but it dynamincally
> initializes them.  This mainly means that newfs(8) runs much faster.

Does this imply that on-disk inodes that are not initialized yet might
have non-0 block pointers? If so, does it further mean that we do not check for
(inode I is used) being consistent with (its block pointers are 0)
anymore? If so it would be nice for unlink() not to reset block pointers
to 0 when then final reference to a file is deleted: that would allow
resuscitation of deleted files.

Thomas.

-- 
    Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FR.EU.ORG