From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261756AbVGROTK (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:19:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261773AbVGROTC (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:19:02 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:37257 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261764AbVGRORR (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:17:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:16:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Steven Rostedt cc: Tom Zanussi , richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, varap@us.ibm.com, karim@opersys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Merging relayfs? In-Reply-To: <1121694275.12862.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <17107.6290.734560.231978@tut.ibm.com> <20050712022537.GA26128@infradead.org> <20050711193409.043ecb14.akpm@osdl.org> <17110.32325.532858.79690@tut.ibm.com> <17114.32450.420164.971783@tut.ibm.com> <1121694275.12862.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I'm actually very much against this. Looking at a point of view from the > logdev device. Having a callback to know to continue at every buffer > switch would just be slowing down something that is expected to be very > fast. What exactly would be slowed down? It would just move around some code and even avoid the overwrite mode check. > I don't see the problem with having an overwrite mode or not. Why > can't relayfs know this? The point is to design a simple and flexible relayfs layer, which means not every possible function has to be done in the relayfs layer, as long it's flexible enough to build additional functionality on top of it (for which it can again provide some library functions). bye, Roman