From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Unicode/UTF-8 support for XFS Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:29:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20140922192958.GJ4120@two.firstfloor.org> References: <20140918195650.GI19952@sgi.com> <87lhpbhfgg.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20140922184145.GH4482@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tinguely@sgi.com, olaf@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([193.170.194.197]:52728 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754275AbaIVTaA (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:30:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140922184145.GH4482@sgi.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > So 250kB bloat -- and what does this fix exactly? > > We're trying to address the size issue by only loading the module when I'm not sure this is really addressing it. > it's needed, but yeah it's big. Open to suggestions on how best to deal > with that. I understand the sticker shock. I don't even understand why you need the whole table. You want to not compare some special symbols, and a few other symbols are equivalent to others. But most symbols are only identical to themselves. Couldn't you have a much smaller table that only expresses the exceptions? > As far as telling the customer "don't do that", my guess is that they > would just go elsewhere. There are several other options for > filesystems that support unicode. They could put some code into their user app that generates an unique representation. -Andi