* one more field in raw_node_ref ?
@ 2004-11-15 8:34 Artem B. Bityuckiy
2004-11-15 8:46 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Artem B. Bityuckiy @ 2004-11-15 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mtd
Hello guys,
I would be happy to know your opinions about to introduce one more
32-bit field to the node_ref structure in the JFFS2. Is this really bad?
This means to increase the memory needed for in-core structures on 25%
:-( I know, it sucks, but this would really simplify and improve the
checkpoints processing...
Opinions?
Thanks.
--
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityuckiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: one more field in raw_node_ref ?
2004-11-15 8:34 one more field in raw_node_ref ? Artem B. Bityuckiy
@ 2004-11-15 8:46 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2004-11-15 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Artem B. Bityuckiy; +Cc: linux-mtd
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 11:34 +0300, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I would be happy to know your opinions about to introduce one more
> 32-bit field to the node_ref structure in the JFFS2. Is this really bad?
Yes but if you make a really good case for it and you finish the bits
which allow us to drop the length field we might let you get away with
it :)
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-15 8:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-11-15 8:34 one more field in raw_node_ref ? Artem B. Bityuckiy
2004-11-15 8:46 ` David Woodhouse
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox