viro@math.psu.edu said:
> What I would like to avoid is scenario like
> Maintainers of filesystems with large private inodes: Why would we
> separate them? We would only waste memory, since the other filesystems
> stay in ->u and keep it large.
> Maintainers of the rest of filesystems: Since there's no patches that
> would take large stuff out of ->u, why would we bother?
> So yes, IMO having such patches available _is_ a good thing. And in
> 2.5 we definitely want them in the tree. If encapsulation part gets
> there during 2.4 and separate allocation is available for all of them
> it will be easier to do without PITA in process.
JFFS2 has the encapsulation part already. I'll make it do separate
allocation in 2.5, when it's actually a gain.
-- dwmw2- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:11 EST