Re: [CFT] Unbork fs.h + per-fs supers

From: Daniel Phillips (
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 06:08:55 EST

On January 5, 2002 10:54 am, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Adding VFS support for per-fs superblock size was dead simple compared to
> > doing the inodes because superblocks are few enough that no slab cache is
> > needed, and also because of cleanup Al had already done.
> *Stop*.
> First of all, exporting size of superblock is wrong, since the entire
> ->read_super() mechanism is going to be replaced with ->get_super(type, ...)
> (get_sb_...() becoming commonly used instances of the method). Moreover,
> freeing superblock is very likely to become a method (for quite a few
> reasons).
> Please, don't turn fs type into a bloody mess. It's bad enough as it
> is; at least don't add the stuff that will go away anyway.

How would you suggest it be done?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:28 EST