Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:30:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:30:09 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:42247 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:30:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:29:57 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Manfred Spraul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de Subject: Re: optimize DNAME_INLINE_LEN Message-ID: <20011214002957.A24984@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <3C192A37.4547D2A7@colorfullife.com> <20011213160706.E940@lynx.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011213160706.E940@lynx.no> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 04:07:06PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > Alternately (also ugly) you could just define struct dentry the as now, > but have a fixed size declaration for d_iname, like: > > #define DNAME_INLINE_MIN 16 > > unsigned char d_iname[DNAME_INLINE_MIN]; Using [0] here would also work and fixing other code to add DNAME_INLINE_MIN as needed. Unfortunately this "fixing other code" would likely prevent the patch going into 2.4, which would be bad. #define d_... has a similar problem => the potential to break previously compiling source code. Probably just using an compiler #ifdef is best, and perhaps doing it cleanly (with using d_iname[0]) on 2.5. -Andi P.S.: I originally picked the 16 number and it was totally arbitary, so an increase on the fallback to 20-30 would be likely ok. - 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/