On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One thing I've been wondering is wether we should actually just > get rid of the online area. Compared to reading an inode from > disk a single additional kmalloc is negligible, and not having the > inline data / extent list would allow us to reduce the inode size > significantly. > > Kees/David: how many of these patches are file systems with some > sort of inline data? Given that it's only about 30 patches declaring > allocations either entirely valid for user copy or not might end up > being nicer in many ways than these offsets. 9 filesystems use some form of inline data: xfs, vxfs, ufs, orangefs, exofs, befs, jfs, ext2, and ext4. How much of each slab is whitelisted varies by filesystem (e.g. ext2/4 uses i_data for other things, but ufs and orangefs and have a dedicate field for symlink names). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
