[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: optimize DNAME_INLINE_LEN
    On Dec 14, 2001  00:29 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
    > 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

    Well, not really. If we wanted to have a minimum size for the d_iname
    field, then if we declare it as zero and it just squeaks into a chacheline,
    then we may be stuck with 0 bytes of inline names, and _all_ names will
    be kmalloced.

    > #define d_... has a similar problem => the potential to break previously
    > compiling source code.

    Again, not really. The #define d_... scheme would leave all of the fields
    in their original locations, just giving them new names within the named
    struct, and the defines would be the backwards compatible (and probably
    still preferrable) way to access these fields. I don't _think_ it would
    cause any compiler struct alignment issues to just put the same fields
    in another struct, but I could be wrong.

    Cheers, Andreas
    Andreas Dilger

    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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.022 / U:10.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site