Re: [PATCH RFC] f2fs: add fast symlink

[Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Chao,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 05:02:47PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>Hi Wanpeng,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wanpeng Li [mailto:wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:42 PM
>> To: Chao Yu
>> Cc: 'Wanpeng Li'; 'Jaegeuk Kim'; 'Changman Lee'; linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net;
>> linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] f2fs: add fast symlink
>> 
>> Hi Chao,
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:17:29PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> >
>> >We always remain space in inode page for inline xattr data,
>> >so it's better to define our max size of fast symlink as below:
>> >
>> >#define MAX_FAST_SYMLINK_SIZE	(MAX_INLINE_DATA + 1)
>> >
>> 
>> Thanks for your review, I just handle all your comments and it works
>> well.
>> 
>> Btw, one question, if inline xattr data area is reserved in inode
>> even if it isn't mounted w/ inline_xattr option? If yes, why it
>> is reserved?
>
>It's not, it keeps space in inode page only if inode is created when
>inline_xattr option is set. What I comment and suggest for
>MAX_FAST_SYMLINK_SIZE is wrong, sorry about that.
>
>We'd better set max size of fast symlink according to inline_xattr flag:
>
>static inline unsigned int max_fast_symlink_size(struct inode *inode)
>{
>	return sizeof(__le32) * addrs_per_inode(F2FS_I(inode));
>}
>

Cool, this one looks more reasonable to me. I will send a newer version
of patch.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li 

>How do you think?
>
>Thanks,
>
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Wanpeng Li