On Sunday 27 April 2008 21:27, Jörn Engel wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 22 April 2008 11:28:19 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:02PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > 
> > > Why xfs code is said to be 5 times bigger than e.g. reiserfs?
> > > Does it have to be that big?
> > 
> > If we cut the bulkstat code out, the handle interface, the
> > preallocation, the journalled quota, the delayed allocation, all the
> > runtime validation, the shutdown code, the debug code, the tracing
> > code, etc, then we might get down to the same size reiser....
> 
> Just noticed this bit of FUD. Last time I did some static analysis on
> stack usage, reiserfs alone would blow away 3k, while xfs was somewhere
> below.

I'm sorry, but it's not what I said.
I didn't say reiserfs eats less stack. I don't know.
I said it is smaller.

reiserfs/*  821474 bytes
xfs/*      3019689 bytes
--
vda
--
unsubscribe notice
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/