Re: revert "config FS_JOURNAL_INFO"

[Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>]

Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On 12/18/09, Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> So we never allow to make memory usage small with providing an option
>> to remove unused area, right?
> 
> We certainly allow this if it results in zero loss in functionality.

Thanks for clarifying this topic.

If you don't mind could you please tell me what zero loss is?
I don't think I could get it exactly.

Is it OK that removing journal_info if !CONFIG_BLOCK?

> 
>> If I want to reduce memory usage by this way, should I keep
>> this kind of patches out of tree?
> 
> Certainly nobody can prohibit you from keeping patch out of tree.
> But if you want something mainlinable, moving ->journal_info
> to fs-specific data structures should do the trick. Or something.

Thanks for the advice, I'll look at this.

Thanks,
Hiroshi