Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Reduce\s+XFS\s+footprint\s+\(was\s+Re\:\s+TAKE\s+\-\s+remove\s+a\s+function\s+xfs\s+added\s+to\s+filemap\.c\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. on xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:58:45 +0100
Apropos -- is it possible to reduce the XFS footprint (as a module) by throwing in some magic compiler options? I already compile it without debugging option, still it's about 500K in size. Of course
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00697.html (9,532 bytes)

2. on xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:39:24 -0600
Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:33:29 -0600, Steve Lord wrote: There is now a function in the regular kernel which does what we need, so use it instead of our own and reduce the xfs fo
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00698.html (10,587 bytes)

3. on xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:54:55 +0100
[...] throwing option, I need quotas and ACLs, so I cannot turn'em off. I HAVE turned off DMAPI and realtime support, tho. That reminds me of another question I'm asking myself since a while: It seem
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00699.html (10,761 bytes)

4. to create a separate log (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:52:30 +0100
At 17:54 26-1-2002 +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: That reminds me of another question I'm asking myself since a while: It seems as if you're developing XFS for Linux from scratch instead of "just" po
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00701.html (10,162 bytes)

5. ible error in buildscript (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:27:42 +0100
[...] I see. Sorry, but I don't have any IRIX experience, so I was pretty clueless about that. Thanks for explaining! That will do for now. :-) Thanks, Ralf -- Verkaufe Original-BMW-Raeder: L I N U X
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00703.html (9,974 bytes)

6. to create a separate log (score: 1)
Author: lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:59:15 -0600
Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: then it gets a bit smaller. There are definitely other code paths you cannot get to in there which we could cut out - just a matter of finding them. That reminds me of another
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00705.html (11,543 bytes)

7. RAID fails (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:12:36 +0100
[...] I don't think that it's worth that you waste your time with this. I just thought I was using "wrong" options or something like that to compile XFS, or that there was a "plug'n'go" way of shrink
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00809.html (9,158 bytes)

8. : NFS and XFS (score: 1)
Author: rnat@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:53:54 +1100
Another thing we could try is to make support for v1 dirs compile-time conditional (since noone/very few people will be using this), this might save a bit more space. I think the code is all accessed
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00814.html (9,756 bytes)

9. , 3.0x (score: 1)
Author: deen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:12:36 +0100
[...] I don't think that it's worth that you waste your time with this. I just thought I was using "wrong" options or something like that to compile XFS, or that there was a "plug'n'go" way of shrink
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00821.html (9,595 bytes)

10. truncate, mmap and holes. (score: 1)
Author: lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:53:54 +1100
Another thing we could try is to make support for v1 dirs compile-time conditional (since noone/very few people will be using this), this might save a bit more space. I think the code is all accessed
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00835.html (10,121 bytes)

11. XFS (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:58:45 +0100
Apropos -- is it possible to reduce the XFS footprint (as a module) by throwing in some magic compiler options? I already compile it without debugging option, still it's about 500K in size. Of course
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01626.html (9,532 bytes)

12. XFS footprint (was Re: TAKE - remove a function xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: ergs" <rabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:39:24 -0600
Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:33:29 -0600, Steve Lord wrote: There is now a function in the regular kernel which does what we need, so use it instead of our own and reduce the xfs fo
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01627.html (10,587 bytes)

13. XFS footprint (was Re: TAKE - remove a function xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:54:55 +0100
[...] throwing option, I need quotas and ACLs, so I cannot turn'em off. I HAVE turned off DMAPI and realtime support, tho. That reminds me of another question I'm asking myself since a while: It seem
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01628.html (10,761 bytes)

14. - remove a function xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:52:30 +0100
At 17:54 26-1-2002 +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: That reminds me of another question I'm asking myself since a while: It seems as if you're developing XFS for Linux from scratch instead of "just" po
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01630.html (10,162 bytes)

15. remove a function xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: s <takis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:27:42 +0100
[...] I see. Sorry, but I don't have any IRIX experience, so I was pretty clueless about that. Thanks for explaining! That will do for now. :-) Thanks, Ralf -- Verkaufe Original-BMW-Raeder: L I N U X
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01632.html (9,974 bytes)

16. move a function xfs added to filemap.c (score: 1)
Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:59:15 -0600
Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: then it gets a bit smaller. There are definitely other code paths you cannot get to in there which we could cut out - just a matter of finding them. That reminds me of another
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01634.html (11,543 bytes)

17. runcate, mmap and holes. (score: 1)
Author: elan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:12:36 +0100
[...] I don't think that it's worth that you waste your time with this. I just thought I was using "wrong" options or something like that to compile XFS, or that there was a "plug'n'go" way of shrink
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01738.html (9,158 bytes)

18. attributes support on powerpc (score: 1)
Author: ent Bernat <bernat@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:53:54 +1100
Another thing we could try is to make support for v1 dirs compile-time conditional (since noone/very few people will be using this), this might save a bit more space. I think the code is all accessed
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01743.html (9,756 bytes)

19. nd XFS (score: 1)
Author: c Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:12:36 +0100
[...] I don't think that it's worth that you waste your time with this. I just thought I was using "wrong" options or something like that to compile XFS, or that there was a "plug'n'go" way of shrink
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01750.html (9,595 bytes)

20. ftruncate, mmap and holes. (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:53:54 +1100
Another thing we could try is to make support for v1 dirs compile-time conditional (since noone/very few people will be using this), this might save a bit more space. I think the code is all accessed
/archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01764.html (10,121 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]

This search system is powered by Namazu