On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:50:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > So without further ado, here are some ideas of ways that we can slim > down struct inode: > > 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? ZFS filesystem uses dynamic, per-file blocksizes. Some Linux filesystem may implement something like this in order to be called "modern". -- Tomasz Torcz "God, root, what's the difference?" [email protected] "God is more forgiving."
Attachment:
pgpeQIVUsh1ng.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
- From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
- References:
- [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
- From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]>
- [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
- Prev by Date: Re: The Death and Diagnosis of a Dying Hard Drive - Is S.M.A.R.T. useful?
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/5] VT binding: Update fbcon to support binding
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
- Index(es):
 |