Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: PATCH 2.5.2.9: ext2 unbork fs.h (part 1/7) | Date | Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:33:43 +0100 |
| |
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.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |