Messages in this thread | | | From | Andries.Brouwer@cwi ... | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:27:07 +0200 (MEST) | Subject | Re: i_blksize |
| |
> Looks like I got myself confused
Yes. But nevertheless, now that you brought this up, we might consider throwing out i_blksize.
I am not aware of anybody who actually uses this to give per-file advice. So, it could be in the superblock. There is no reason why it would be a power of two - the case mentioned yesterday or so was cifs, with
inode->i_blksize = (pTcon->ses->server->maxBuf - MAX_CIFS_HDR_SIZE) & 0xFFFFFE00;
I see no reason not to replace i_blksize by i_sb->s_optimal_io_size.
Any objections?
If sizeof(struct inode) decreases by 1% then we can keep 1% more inodes.
That reminds me - I threw out i_dev and i_cdev, but Al reintroduced i_cdev. We should do as some comment says and make a union with i_bdev and i_pipe. Another 8 bytes gone.
Andries
- 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/
| |