Re: PATCH 2.5.2.9: ext2 unbork fs.h (part 1/7)

Jeff Garzik
2002-01-07T21:27:32Z

Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> On January 7, 2002 03:13 pm, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > Goodie. Now we need benchmarks for all the approaches... (-;
> >
> > At 13:21 07/01/02, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >patch7: implement ext2 use of s_op->{alloc,destroy}
> > >
> > > at this point we have what Linus described:
> > >
> > > struct ext2_inode_info {
> > > ...ext2 stuff...
> > > struct inode inode;
> > > };
> >
> > If we were to raise compiler requirements to gcc-2.96 or later this could
> > be simplified with an annonymous struct (having elements in struct inode
> > with the same name as elements in ...ext2 stuff... should be a shooting
> > offence IMO):
> >
> > struct ext2_inode_info {
> > ...ext2 stuff...
> > struct inode;
> > };
> >
> > Advantage of this would be that as far as the fs is concerned there is only
> > one inode and each element can just be dereferenced straight away without
> > need to think was that the generic inode or the fs inode and without need
> > for keeping two pointers around. This leads to simpler code inside the
> > filesystems once they adapt.
>
> Interesting, it's something I've always wanted to be able to do. But I
> suppose the compiler requirement is a stupport.

I am not a fan of anon unions/structs, so I must disagree with Anton
here...

> > Of course fs which are not adapted would still just work with the fs_i()
> > and fs_sb() macros and/or using two separate pointers.
>
> Yes, the fs_* macros are the really critical part of all this. I'd like to
> get them in early, while we hash out the rest of it. I think Jeff supports
> me in this, possibly Al as well.

agreed, from my side

Jeff

--
Jeff Garzik | Alternate titles for LOTR:
Building 1024 | Fast Times at Uruk-Hai
MandrakeSoft | The Took, the Elf, His Daughter and Her Lover
| Samwise Gamgee: International Hobbit of Mystery