[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51AF9B6C.1030006@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jfs: neatening
On 06/04/2013 06:39 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> The second patch is speculative and maybe not necessary.
>
> Is a 3KB reduction in object size when embedded and !CONFIG_PRINTK worth it?
I'm pushing the first patch to linux-next. I haven't made up my mind
about the second. I don't really consider jfs to be the filesystem of
choice for a small embedded system. Maybe something like a dvr, but then
it wouldn't be a big factor.
Thanks
Shagggy
> Joe Perches (2):
> jfs: Update jfs_error
> jfs: Reduce object size when CONFIG_PRINTK=n
>
> fs/jfs/jfs_dmap.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
> fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.c | 37 +++++++++++++-------------
> fs/jfs/jfs_extent.c | 2 +-
> fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c | 5 ++--
> fs/jfs/jfs_superblock.h | 17 +++++++++++-
> fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c | 2 +-
> fs/jfs/jfs_xtree.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> fs/jfs/namei.c | 2 +-
> fs/jfs/resize.c | 2 +-
> fs/jfs/super.c | 24 ++++++++++-------
> fs/jfs/xattr.c | 4 +--
> 12 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 154 deletions(-)
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists