From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/5] mm/fs: execute in place (V2) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:00:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20050518150053.GA24389@infradead.org> References: <1116422644.2202.1.camel@cotte.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1116424413.2202.17.camel@cotte.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20050518142707.GA23162@infradead.org> <428B57AA.2030006@freenet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: To: Carsten Otte Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <428B57AA.2030006@freenet.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:56:42PM +0200, Carsten Otte wrote: > I do plainly agree that this would make the code more readable here. > But it has a significant downside: > Once you have a different set of file operations for either case, you > also need to have a different file_operations struct in each individual > filesystem using this. Also, this moves the check "do we have xip today?" > from here to the filesystem that needs to decide which file operations > struct to use. > Looking forward, there may be multiple filesystems using this which > leads to duplicating the need for this check. I don't think that's much of a problem. The filesystem has a new file_operations instance and decided at read_inode time which one to use. You already have different address_space operations and a different truncate anyway.