On Thursday 20 September 2007 11:38, David Chinner wrote:I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a structure per filesystem block construct. In the places where you want to have a handle on that information. In the data path of a lot of filesystems, it's not really useful, no question. But the block / buffer head concept is there and is useful for many things obviously. fsblock, I believe, improves on it; maybe even to the point where there won't be too much reason for many filesystems to convert their data paths to something different (eg. nobh mode, or an extent block mapping). If you don't need to manipulate or manage the pagecache on a per-block basis anyway, then you shouldn't need fsblock (or anything else particularly special) to do higher order block sizes. If you do sometimes need to, then fsblock *may* be a way you can remove vmap code from your filesystem and share it with generic code... Agreed :) -
| Jesse Barnes | Re: [stable] [BUG][PATCH] cpqphp: fix kernel NULL pointer dereference |
| Greg KH | [003/136] p54usb: add Zcomax XG-705A usbid |
| Magnus Damm | [PATCH 03/07] ARM: Use shared GIC entry macros on Realview |
| Oliver Neukum | Re: [Bug #13682] The webcam stopped working when upgrading from 2.6.29 to 2.6.30 |
| Martin Schwidefsky | Re: [PATCH] optimized ktime_get[_ts] for GENERIC_TIME=y |
git: | |
| Junio C Hamano | Re: Some advanced index playing |
| Jeff King | Re: confusion over the new branch and merge config |
| Robin Rosenberg | Re: cvs2svn conversion directly to git ready for experimentation |
| Linus Torvalds | git binary size... |
| Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason | Re: Challenge with Git-Bash |
| Linux Kernel Mailing List |
