Jeff Mahoney: > The smaller code size applies to both cases, just not entirely as > small due to the size of the kobject. It's a pretty small structure, > of which we use one per superblock. The scale makes any savings > negligible. > > The sysfs code is all static inline calls, so it carries no footprint > when disabled. The use of kobjects removes quite a bit of code and > would likely be brought up if it were to be merged upstream.
You are leading me strongly to the world of sysfs/kobject, and I am almost reaching there. :-) Here is my another (minor) concern. The sysfs interface changes often and it makes me hard to maintain aufs. I am trying to support several versions as possible I can, and you may know how hard it is. If you know that such changes will be less often than ever, please let me know. Junjiro Okajima ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
