From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f49.google.com ([209.85.161.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1P45uC-00040u-Sy for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:54:09 +0000 Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so449308fxm.36 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] JFFS2: Dynamically choose inocache hash size From: Artem Bityutskiy To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1286480123.3757.2.camel@i7.infradead.org> References: <20101007181402.982199D401B@zog.reactivated.net> <1286479935.1797.14.camel@brekeke> <1286480123.3757.2.camel@i7.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:51:18 +0300 Message-ID: <1286517078.2095.15.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Daniel Drake Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 20:35 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 22:32 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > Why is this complication needed? Unless there is a very good reason, I'd > > just stick with older patch you sent, which I BTW also have in my > > l2-mtd-2.6.git tree: > > I asked for it. With smaller file systems, a huge increase buys nothing > and is just bloat. OK, I looked closer to the code and I see that I misunderstood this constant. I though it is only about increasing the size of an array of integers, but this is about increasing the size of an array of struct jffs2_inode_cache. Fair enough. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)