From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:41:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1155172843.3161.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060809234019.c8a730e3.akpm@osdl.org> <44DB203A.6050901@garzik.org> <44DB25C1.1020807@garzik.org> <44DB27A3.1040606@garzik.org> <44DB3151.8050904@garzik.org> <44DB34FF.4000303@garzik.org> <44DB3D65.6030308@garzik.org> <44DB4224.7030303@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Andrew Morton , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:56719 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161266AbWHJOmA (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:42:00 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <44DB4224.7030303@garzik.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > With CONFIG_LBD disabled you still had the truncation/complexity issues > > somewhere else, so you gain nothing, but waste memory in ext4. > > You gain simplicity and reduced number of code paths. Compared to other things it's almost nothing. > "waste memory" is hardly a significant argument. I doubt you will notice a > difference. Compared to other current waste, that's possible, but why do we have to make it worse and don't even make an effort to keep it a little under control? bye, Roman