On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 15:21 -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > >>>>> "Eric" == Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Which seems to fly in the face of your claim that it needs to be able > to re-enable itself by tracking open inodes even when disabled. You're confusing multiple completely unrelated things. Your confusing loading an IMA measurement policy vs IMA indicating that it's measurements may be unreliable. > As the number of inodes goes up (say during a backup which reads > them...) won't the size of this cache go up as well, even when IMA is > disabled? Why is this overhead even needed? At the end of this patch the number of integrity structures still has a 1-1 mapping with the number of inodes. If you look at the entire series you will see that is not the case. This patch by itself will cut the memory usage per inode by almost 600 bytes. -- 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
