Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On 12/18/09, Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
