| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: vnodeops |
| From: | Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:37:05 -0800 |
| In-reply-to: | <20030817041908.GM19630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-copies-to: | nobody |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20030817041908.GM19630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 05:19:08AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > So is there any reason to keep the vnodeops layer around? There's only > one implementation of it (xfs_vnodeops) so it seems kind of pointless. > Removing it would probably shrink xfs quite a bit, both source and binary. i believe its used for CXFS. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | vnodeops, Matthew Wilcox |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] Implement immutable/append-only flags in XFS #5, Ethan Benson |
| Previous by Thread: | vnodeops, Matthew Wilcox |
| Next by Thread: | Re: vnodeops, Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
