On 10/13/06, Erez Zadok <[email protected]> wrote:
I think we should do it right the first time (i.e., now :-)
I would much rather merge it now (assuming I didn't break ecryptfs)
and have you unionfs developers fix it later :-).
On 10/13/06, Erez Zadok <[email protected]> wrote:
Why not make it something more dynamic, such as a mount-time option per sb?
Even at 8, you waste most of that space for non-fan-out stackable file
systems such as ecryptfs; and those unionfs users who want more, will have
to _recompile_ the code.
Yes, we discussed this with Jeff already. For unionfs, we must make it
more dynamic. However, using slab unconditionally makes it totally
unacceptable for ecryptfs. Therefore, we need a small static array
that should satisfy most user (I think we can drop the static array
size to three):
struct stackfs_inode_info {
struct inode **hidden_inodes;
struct inode *static_inodes[3];
};
Initially, hidden_inodes can point to static_inodes which we can the
replace with a dynamic array if required. Btw, we probably want to do
krealloc() for that in the slab allocator.
Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
