Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: inode #1 Summary: The dark ages ... Message-ID: <15664@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 14 Apr 89 18:22:21 GMT References: <352@anvil.oz> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) Organization: River Parishes Programming, Dallas TX Lines: 19 In article <352@anvil.oz> michi@anvil.oz (Michael Henning) writes: >I just did a "find / -inum 1 -print" on an AIX and a Xenix 386 system. As >it turns out, inode 1 is not used. The root inode of every file system is 2. >Can anyone tell me why inode 1 is not used anywhere ? It seems that it >could be used, since if 0 indicates that a directory entry is free, why >not use inode 1 like any other inode ? Because in ages past someone wanted to use inode 1 to contain the list of bad blocks. If you use fsdb to create a file with inumber 1, it should function just fine. The root inode is defined to be 2 in , there is no reason it can't be defined to be 1. Non-portable programs not withstanding :-( ... -- John F. Haugh II +-Quote of the Week:------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Porsche does not recommend InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | exceeding any speed limits" UucpNet : !killer!rpp386!jfh +-- -- Porsche Ad ------------