Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:07:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:07:30 -0500 Received: from dsl-213-023-038-159.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.38.159]:33039 "EHLO starship.berlin") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:07:12 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Jeff Garzik , torvalds@transmeta.com, viro@math.psu.edu Subject: Re: PATCH 2.5.2.9: ext2 unbork fs.h (part 1/7) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:10:21 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20020107132121.241311F6A@gtf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 7, 2002 04:19 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote: > - You are dreferencing a pointer, and have two allocations for every > inode instead of one. Oh no, you only have one allocator, and you have the filesystem do it, with per-sb methods. Why is this better than having the VFS do it? Does this imply you might have different sized inodes with different mounts of the same filesystem? The per-fs cost with my variant is: 4-8 bytes per filesystem, period. No methods needed, and the object management code doesn't get replicated through all the filesystems. Also, having the inode point at itself is a little, hmm, 'what's wrong with this picture', don't you think? -- Daniel - 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/