From: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
To: Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:50:19 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060615075018.B884384@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17551.58643.704359.815153@gargle.gargle.HOWL>; from nikita@clusterfs.com on Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 02:29:39PM +0400
Hi Nikita,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 02:29:39PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Sorry, but why this operation is needed? Generic code (in fs/*.c)
> doesn't use ->i_blksize at all. If XFS wants to provide per-inode
> st_blksize, all it has to do is to store preferred buffer size in its
> file system specific inode (struct xfs_inode), and use something
> different from generic_fillattr() as its ->i_op->getattr() callback
> (xfs_vn_getattr()).
We already do this. The original questions were related to whether
i_blksize and i_blkbits need to be per-inode or per-filesystem, and
thats what I was trying to answer...
| 1) Move i_blksize (optimal size for I/O, reported by the stat system
| call). Is there any reason why this needs to be per-inode, instead
| of per-filesystem?
| 2) Move i_blkbits (blocksize for doing direct I/O in bits) to struct
| super. Again, why is this per-inode?
As to whether a new inode operation is useful/needed - *shrug* - not
really my call, I was saying we can work with whatever ends up being
the final solution, provided it keeps per-inode granularity.
cheers.
--
Nathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-14 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-09 23:50 Theodore Ts'o
2006-06-10 0:24 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2006-06-10 1:27 ` Al Viro
2006-06-10 1:56 ` Theodore Tso
2006-06-10 6:24 ` Stefan Richter
2006-06-10 10:48 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-06-10 15:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-06-13 4:35 ` Nathan Scott
2006-06-13 4:32 ` Nathan Scott
2006-06-13 14:00 ` Avi Kivity
2006-06-13 17:44 ` Theodore Tso
2006-06-13 18:08 ` Avi Kivity
2006-06-13 20:10 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-06-13 20:25 ` Avi Kivity
2006-06-13 22:41 ` Nathan Scott
2006-06-14 10:29 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-06-14 21:50 ` Nathan Scott [this message]
2006-06-15 5:49 ` Theodore Tso
2006-06-15 7:01 ` Nathan Scott
2006-06-15 8:46 ` Brian F. G. Bidulock
2006-06-15 10:20 ` Nathan Scott
2006-06-14 23:27 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-06-15 10:09 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-06-10 11:03 ` Tomasz Torcz
2006-06-10 15:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-06-15 0:16 ` Brian F. G. Bidulock
2006-06-15 4:43 ` Theodore Tso
2006-06-15 8:27 ` Brian F. G. Bidulock
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060615075018.B884384@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com \
--to=nathans@sgi.com \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nikita@clusterfs.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®