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 :) -
| Alan | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Paul Mundt | Re: 2.6.22-rc4-mm2 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
