Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?

David Woodhouse (dwmw2@infradead.org)
Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:51:32 +0100

viro@math.psu.edu said:
> What I would like to avoid is scenario like
> Maintainers of filesystems with large private inodes: Why would we
> separate them? We would only waste memory, since the other filesystems
> stay in ->u and keep it large.

> Maintainers of the rest of filesystems: Since there's no patches that
> would take large stuff out of ->u, why would we bother?

> So yes, IMO having such patches available _is_ a good thing. And in
> 2.5 we definitely want them in the tree. If encapsulation part gets
> there during 2.4 and separate allocation is available for all of them
> it will be easier to do without PITA in process.

JFFS2 has the encapsulation part already. I'll make it do separate
allocation in 2.5, when it's actually a gain.

--
dwmw2




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/