Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264164AbUD0PSM (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:18:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264184AbUD0PSM (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:18:12 -0400 Received: from dsl093-002-214.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.2.214]:18948 "EHLO pumpkin.fieldses.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264164AbUD0PSL (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:18:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:18:03 -0400 To: Andreas Gruenbacher Cc: Andrew Morton , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] nfsacl Message-ID: <20040427151802.GA1490@fieldses.org> References: <1082975143.3295.68.camel@winden.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1082975143.3295.68.camel@winden.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 859 Lines: 18 On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > nfsacl-lazy-alloc > Allow to allocate pages in the receive buffers lazily. ACLs may have > up to 1024 entries in nfsacl but usually are small, so allocating > space for them on demand makes sense. Is there any reason we couldn't set the maximum smaller than that? It looks like the acl entries are pretty compact (12 bytes if I'm reading the xdr code right?) so if we limited the length of an xdr-encoded acl to a page that would still allow a few hundred entries. Are there really people that need 1000-entry acls? --Bruce Fields - 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/