Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:24:12 +0100 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [ANN] Squashfs 3.0 released |
| |
On Tue, 21 March 2006 14:28:53 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Mar 21, 2006 20:03 +0000, Phillip Lougher wrote: > > I don't want the lack of a fixed endianness on disk to become a problem. > > I personally don't think the use of, or lack of a fixed endianness to > > be that important, but I'd prefer not to change the current situation > > and adopt a fixed format. I use big endian systems almost exclusively, > > and I don't like the way fixed formats always tend to be little-endian. > > If you want to squeak every last ounce of performance out of the filesystem, > just have it declare two filesystem types - one for the little-endian, and > one for the bit endian. Generate one of them via "sed" from the other, to > rename the functions, exports, etc, so they don't conflict. Then, depending > on the superblock magic it will mount the right filesystem, depending on > endianness. Since they are separate filesystems, normally only one module > or the other need to be loaded at a time, and there is no runtime overhead.
That would be an interesting idea for quite another purpose: measurement.
So far, there has been a lack of numbers in this thread. Al mentioned that conditional branches can be more expensive and I usually trust his words, but actual cold hard numbers would help more.
> "unlisted-recipients: no To-header on input <;, Jeff Garzik" <jeff@garzik.org>,
I fixed this up. No idea what garbled the header.
Jörn
-- My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared to master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes evolving in time are relatively poorly developed. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra - 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/
| |