[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS architecture ?

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS architecture ?
From: James Simmons <jsimmons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ken McDonell <kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefan Smietanowski <stefan@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS mailinglist <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20000403235842.A30564@gruyere.muc.suse.de>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 07:45:23AM +1000, Ken McDonell wrote:
> > (b) will the Linux version of XFS support both a little endian on-disk
> >     format (what you see today with the released code on Intel
> >     platforms), _and_ the IRIX MIPS on-disk format
> Switching endians is very cheap on modern CPUs (ppro+ have a special
> instruction, ultrasparc/ia64/et.al. have special bits in the store
> instructions to store both endians). What is expensive is checking
> whether you need to switch (or rather, it is not that expensive at runtime,
> but bloats the code/binary a lot because a lot of routines will be duplicated)
> Big-Endian XFS everywhere probably makes sense.  TCP/IP has proven that it 
> is possible :-) 

I agree. Keep it big endian. The world (except intel) uses big endian.

"Look it's a text editor, no it's a OS, no it's Emacs"
James Simmons                                           ____/| 
fbdev/gfx developer                                     \ o.O| 
http://www.linux-fbdev.org                               =(_)= 
http://linuxgfx.sourceforge.net                            U

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>