Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hob.acsalaska.net (hob.acsalaska.net [209.112.155.42]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h7H4b8Fl012250 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:37:10 -0700 Received: from erbenson.alaska.net (74-pm2.nwc.alaska.net [209.112.138.74]) by hob.acsalaska.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7H4b6dK008518 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:37:07 -0800 (AKDT) (envelope-from erbenson@alaska.net) Received: from plato.local.lan (plato.local.lan [192.168.0.4]) by erbenson.alaska.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E953A04 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:37:04 -0800 (AKDT) Received: by plato.local.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 246C040FF44; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:37:05 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:37:05 -0800 From: Ethan Benson To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: vnodeops Message-ID: <20030817043704.GB10246@plato.local.lan> Mail-Followup-To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com References: <20030817041908.GM19630@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030817041908.GM19630@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-OS: Debian GNU X-gpg-fingerprint: E3E4 D0BC 31BC F7BB C1DD C3D6 24AC 7B1A 2C44 7AFC X-gpg-key: http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/gpg/key.asc Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies. X-ACS-Spam-Status: no X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 X-archive-position: 65 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: erbenson@alaska.net Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 863 Lines: 32 --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 05:19:08AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >=20 > 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. --=20 Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAj8/BnAACgkQJKx7GixEevzMmQCdEJLzO3b7TwixAO4Ika86eRDF /M8AnihRppiFH8Basruy9z7zlSOW+HQd =lVz7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv--