lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.103 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site