Hello,
At 15:18 22/05/01, Alexander Viro wrote:
[snip cool stuff]
>diff -urN S5-pre4/include/linux/fs.h S5-pre4-cdev/include/linux/fs.h
>--- S5-pre4/include/linux/fs.h Sat May 19 22:46:36 2001
>+++ S5-pre4-cdev/include/linux/fs.h Tue May 22 09:14:25 2001
>@@ -384,6 +384,14 @@
> int gfp_mask; /* how to allocate the
> pages */
> };
>
>+struct char_device {
>+ struct list_head hash;
>+ atomic_t count;
>+ dev_t dev;
>+ atomic_t openers;
>+ struct semaphore sem;
Why not name consistently with the struct block_device?
I.e.:
struct char_device {
struct list_head cd_hash;
atomic_t cd_count;
dev_t cd_dev;
atomic_t cd_openers;
struct semaphore cd_sem;
};
>@@ -426,8 +434,10 @@
> struct address_space *i_mapping;
> struct address_space i_data;
> struct dquot *i_dquot[MAXQUOTAS];
>+ /* These three should probably be a union */
> struct pipe_inode_info *i_pipe;
> struct block_device *i_bdev;
>+ struct char_device *i_cdev;
You could then use an (perhaps even unnamed if we require a high enough gcc
version) union in the inode structure so you don't waste space having a
pointer to both c_dev and b_dev, such as:
union {
struct block_device *i_bdev;
struct char_device *i_cdev;
};
It isn't possible that both i_bdev and i_cdev are used at the same time, is
it? If it was my suggestion is obviously bogus...
Any reasons why my proposal would be a bad idea?
Just IMVHO.
Best regards,
Anton
--
"Nothing succeeds like success." - Alexandre Dumas
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://sf.net/projects/linux-ntfs/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
