From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272837AbTHEQ2T (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:28:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272863AbTHEQ2T (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:28:19 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:20934 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272837AbTHEQ1K (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:27:10 -0400 From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:27:07 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: i_blksize Cc: aebr@win.tue.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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