Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:07:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:07:51 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:18437 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:07:50 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:18:24 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Andries Brouwer cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Fwd: struct inode size reduction. In-Reply-To: <20030309203144.GA3814@win.tue.nl> Message-ID: References: <20030309135402.GB32107@suse.de> <20030309171314.GA3783@win.tue.nl> <20030309203359.GA7276@suse.de> <20030309195555.A22226@infradead.org> <20030309203144.GA3814@win.tue.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 778 Lines: 21 Hi, On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Andries Brouwer wrote: > [I already submitted the patch throwing it out, but someone, > maybe it was Roman Zippel, complained that that was going > in the wrong direction. In the very long run that may be true > (or not), but for 2.6 I do not see the point of this dead code.] My main question here is whether that code hurts in any way? Does it prevent other cleanups? Sure this code needs more work to be really useful, but as long as it only wastes a bit of space, I'd prefer to keep it. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/