Re: PATCH 2.5.2.9: ext2 unbork fs.h (part 1/7)

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

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