Messages in this thread | | | From | David Woodhouse <> | Subject | Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints? | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:51:32 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |