Re: XFS and journalling filesystems

Fred Reimer (Fred.Reimer@bellsouth.net)
Sat, 29 May 1999 13:22:41 -0400


----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Jim Mostek <mostek@sgi.com>
Cc: <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; <mcai7et2@stud.umist.ac.uk>;
<linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: XFS and journalling filesystems

> > This should save about 10K. Other stuff is on the side like the extended
> > attributes and they really don't impact the main code.
> >
> > Why do lines of code restrict what makes an fs ideal for an appliance or
desktop?
>
> Lines of code directly influence size of code.
>
> If I have a kernel and compressed root file system on a 4Mb flash device
> I'm not going to be terribly keen to move to a larger part for features I
> don't need.

But that's the beauty of Linux! You get to choose what you want in the
kernel and recompile to your tastes. You can even choose whether you want
modules or not, if you have RAM limitations also. I don't think this is a
particularly good reason to limit what can go in the kernel. You can make
the argument that distributions should not include it in the default kernel
image they provide, but you wouldn't be using a standard distribution in the
type of system you are talking about anyway.

I fail to see the logic here.

fwr

-
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/