Re: [PATCH 0/2] jfs: neatening

[Dave Kleikamp]

On 06/04/2013 06:39 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> The second patch is speculative and maybe not necessary.
> 
> Is a 3KB reduction in object size when embedded and !CONFIG_PRINTK worth it?

I'm pushing the first patch to linux-next. I haven't made up my mind
about the second. I don't really consider jfs to be the filesystem of
choice for a small embedded system. Maybe something like a dvr, but then
it wouldn't be a big factor.

Thanks
Shagggy

> Joe Perches (2):
>   jfs: Update jfs_error
>   jfs: Reduce object size when CONFIG_PRINTK=n
> 
>  fs/jfs/jfs_dmap.c       | 70 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
>  fs/jfs/jfs_dtree.c      | 37 +++++++++++++-------------
>  fs/jfs/jfs_extent.c     |  2 +-
>  fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c       | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c   |  5 ++--
>  fs/jfs/jfs_superblock.h | 17 +++++++++++-
>  fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c     |  2 +-
>  fs/jfs/jfs_xtree.c      | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  fs/jfs/namei.c          |  2 +-
>  fs/jfs/resize.c         |  2 +-
>  fs/jfs/super.c          | 24 ++++++++++-------
>  fs/jfs/xattr.c          |  4 +--
>  12 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 154 deletions(-)
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/