xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc()

To: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc()
From: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:52:33 +1000
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4815A7A5.9040507@firstfloor.org>
Organization: Aconex
References: <200804261651.02078.vda.linux__2040.04651536724$1209223026$gmane$org@googlemail.com> <87iqy4wfjq.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080426200701.GA10883@infradead.org> <20080426202630.GG17905@one.firstfloor.org> <20080426202323.GA14245@infradead.org> <1209341212.23166.122.camel@edge.scott.net.au> <4815A7A5.9040507@firstfloor.org>
Reply-to: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 12:32 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > and
> > its a side-effect of needing to do that (all the code
> > dealing with specifics of ondisk format is shared).
> 
> But does that really need "STATIC"? Seems doubtful to me.

In userspace STATIC is defined to nothing, and the tools
(and/or libxfs) directly call into numerous functions that
are (really) static in the kernel.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


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