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.
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.
Best regards,
Anton
-- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:34 EST