On 09.01.24 16:47, Luis Henriques wrote: > Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> As I've already feared we (as in btrfs) are the worst here. > > It probably won't make you feel any better, but the value for ceph isn't > correct as you're just taking into account the code in 'fs/ceph/'. If you > also take 'net/ceph/', it brings it much closer to btrfs: 63 + 48 = 111 > > Cheers, Yeah I've just quickly skimmed over fs/. There's net/ (69) and drivers/ (36) as well.
