Duplication of dirent names in JFFS2 summary

[Artem B. Bityutskiy]

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 13:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Inode number is going to start low, and will take only two bytes if it's
> less than 16364 -- three bytes up to 2097152. Storing it as an index
> into a table of 'inodes affected by this summary' might also be
> worthwhile, since we'll often have many nodes which belong to the same
> inode.
> 
> Version is also going to start low -- and we can also avoid storing it
> for the second and subsequent nodes belonging to any given inode. We
> _know_ it only counts up by one at a time.
I'd not take seriously a compression which stably degrades with the flow
of time. So, I'd no count version and inode. And I have a feeling that
the gain will not worth the effort, new bugs, new complexities...

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityutskiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.