Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.linux.org.uk (IDENT:93@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk [195.92.249.252]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h7H4J9Fl011768 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:19:11 -0700 Received: from willy by www.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.14) id 19oF0W-0000XN-7M for linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:19:08 +0100 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:19:08 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: vnodeops Message-ID: <20030817041908.GM19630@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 64 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: willy@debian.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 456 Lines: 10 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. -- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk