Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/8] inode_diet: Replace inode.u.generic_ip with inode.i_private | | Date | Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:45:45 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:43, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > As a further suggestion, I wonder do we really need i_private at all? > Since we have sb->s_op->alloc_inode and inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode > if all filesystems did something along the following lines: > > struct myfs_inode { > struct inode i_inode; > ... > }; > > #define MYFS_I(inode) container_of((inode), struct myfs_inode, i_inode) > > then it would seem that i_private is redundant. If there is a file > system which does genuinely need a pointer here (if indeed such a > filesystem does exist, I haven't actually checked that) then a pointer > can just be added as the one single other member of (in my example) > struct myfs_inode. > That would mean that all file systems need to implement ->alloc_inode, which in turn need slab caches that eat consume memory even when the file system is not mounted.
Something as simple as nfsctl or devpts should not need that.
Arnd <>< - 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/
|  |