Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-15,: Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs

# Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs

Albert D. Cahalan (acahalan@cs.uml.edu)
Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:09:30 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: david parsons: "Re: [patch] smp-2.3.99-5-B2, various x86 SMP updates/fixes"
- Next message: david parsons: "Re: devfs "instant replay" (Was: devfs - why not ?)"
- Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Reply: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"

Richard Gooch writes:
> Linus Torvalds writes:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:

>>> You mean define a FS-specific structure and point generic_ip to it?
>>
>> Yes. Or, if the FS-specific field is small enough, then just make it
>> part of the union of FS-specific stuff.
>
> Fine. Actually, one day I hope to see the union blown away and every
> FS just write a pointer.

Not without benchmarks I hope! You get double the number of memory
allocations, most likely increased memory usage, and the extra
overhead (register pressure and memory access?) of indirection.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: david parsons: "Re: [patch] smp-2.3.99-5-B2, various x86 SMP updates/fixes"
- Next message: david parsons: "Re: devfs "instant replay" (Was: devfs - why not ?)"
- Previous message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"
- Reply: Richard Gooch: "Re: Suggested dual human/binary interface for proc/devfs"