Re: Fwd: struct inode size reduction.

[Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>]

On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 06:13:14PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:

 > > -	/* These three should probably be a union */
 > >  	struct list_head	i_devices;
 > > -	struct pipe_inode_info	*i_pipe;
 > > -	struct block_device	*i_bdev;
 > > -	struct char_device	*i_cdev;
 > > -
 > > +	union {
 > > +		struct pipe_inode_info	*i_pipe;
 > > +		struct block_device	*i_bdev;
 > > +		struct char_device	*i_cdev;
 > > +	} type;
 > 
 > Not really any objection, but this is half work where
 > more can be done. The comment is right: also i_devices
 > can go into the union.

The different size types threw me, and I figured it
was a misplaced comment. It certainly made more sense
that way when it mentioned 'these three' rather than
'these four'.  looking at bd_acquire I'm not so sure
it's as simple a job as the other three were.

 > (And i_cdev can be deleted altogether, but that is an
 > independent matter.)

There still seems to be some users of that, so I'll
leave that to a follow up patch, (or someone else who
really knows whats going on there).

		Dave