"François Revol" <revol@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > BFS could use this internally, and although the original one
> > doesn't,
> > my implementation actually does. It's not really needed though, so
> > we
> > could think about removing it.
> Doesn't tell me what it does...
Ah, okay. I should have said if the directory/container in question
supports duplicate entries or not. For indices this is generally true,
for other types, it's not :)
> > > Also I'd reconsider using S_FOO_INDEX in favor of S_INDEX, since
> > > it's not very scalable... we have only 2 bits left in that field.
> > I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
> Are the different bits really needed or could we use just one to say
> S_INDEX without type distinction ?
They are actually used by BFS to maintain the index type. Although it
also duplicates this information in the B+tree header, we now also use
it to report the types when calling stat() on an index.
Bye,
Axel.
