[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: transfering to new HDD



On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> > > Files and directories are identified under most Linux-like fileystems
> > > (e2fs, minix fs, UFS, etc., but *not* msdos, vfat), by inodes.  An inode
> > > is essentially a database entry in a table giving storage location,
> > > name, and values of several attributes (read/write/execute/suid), etc.
> >  ^^^^^^
> > 
> > name? Files are nameless in UNIX. Read about hard links for example
> > And from inode you should get storage, attirbutes, times (creation,
> > access) and reference counter. 
> 
> lost+found inode is 11 for ext2fs.  Do:  
> 
>     ls -id /lost+found

hmm...

i thought there is no special inode for /lost+found. Any reason
the inode should be special?

> As I said, limited understand.  You're right, file name is referenced
> only in the directory entry itself, which links an inode to a name.
> Renaming myself Luke and using the source shows the structures.

ok

> 
> I don't find the lost+found inode definition though.  Anyone?
> 
> **********************************
> ** /usr/include/linux/ext2_fs.h **
> **********************************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [...]
> 
> /*
>  * Special inodes numbers
>  */
> #define EXT2_BAD_INO             1      /* Bad blocks inode */
> #define EXT2_ROOT_INO            2      /* Root inode */
> #define EXT2_ACL_IDX_INO         3      /* ACL inode */
> #define EXT2_ACL_DATA_INO        4      /* ACL inode */
> #define EXT2_BOOT_LOADER_INO     5      /* Boot loader inode */
> #define EXT2_UNDEL_DIR_INO       6      /* Undelete directory inode */
> 
> /* First non-reserved inode for old ext2 filesystems */
> #define EXT2_GOOD_OLD_FIRST_INO 11

ah.. see? /lost+found is first free inode, nothing special. So you could
just recreate it anytime you want

i believe in ext3 (==ext+jounaling) journal inode would be special but too
lazy to check

regards

OK


Reply to: