Re: PATCH ext2 unbork fs.h (part 1/7)

From: Daniel Phillips (
Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 10:33:43 EST

On January 7, 2002 03:13 pm, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Goodie. Now we need benchmarks for all the approaches... (-;
> At 13:21 07/01/02, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> <snip>
> >patch7: implement ext2 use of s_op->{alloc,destroy}
> >
> > at this point we have what Linus described:
> >
> > struct ext2_inode_info {
> > ...ext2 stuff...
> > struct inode inode;
> > };
> If we were to raise compiler requirements to gcc-2.96 or later this could
> be simplified with an annonymous struct (having elements in struct inode
> with the same name as elements in ...ext2 stuff... should be a shooting
> offence IMO):
> struct ext2_inode_info {
> ...ext2 stuff...
> struct inode;
> };
> Advantage of this would be that as far as the fs is concerned there is only
> one inode and each element can just be dereferenced straight away without
> need to think was that the generic inode or the fs inode and without need
> for keeping two pointers around. This leads to simpler code inside the
> filesystems once they adapt.

Interesting, it's something I've always wanted to be able to do. But I
suppose the compiler requirement is a stupport.

> Of course fs which are not adapted would still just work with the fs_i()
> and fs_sb() macros and/or using two separate pointers.

Yes, the fs_* macros are the really critical part of all this. I'd like to
get them in early, while we hash out the rest of it. I think Jeff supports
me in this, possibly Al as well.

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 - 21:00:34 EST