On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 08:56:28PM +0800, zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> Introduce one new mount option '-o hottrack', >> and add its parsing support. >> Its usage looks like: >> mount -o hottrack >> mount -o nouser,hottrack >> mount -o nouser,hottrack,loop >> mount -o hottrack,nouser > > I think that this option parsing should be done by the filesystem, > even though the tracking functionality is in the VFS. That way ony > the filesystems that can use the tracking information will turn it > on, rather than being able to turn it on for everything regardless > of whether it is useful or not. > > Along those lines, just using a normal superblock flag to indicate > it is active (e.g. MS_HOT_INODE_TRACKING in sb->s_flags) means you > don't need to allocate the sb->s_hot_info structure just to be able > to check whether we are tracking hot inodes or not. > > This then means the hot inode tracking for the superblock can be > initialised by the filesystem as part of it's fill_super method, > along with the filesystem specific code that will use the hot > tracking information the VFS gathers.... I can see what you mean, but don't know if other guys also agree with this. If so, all FS specific code which use hot tracking feature wll have to add the same chunk of code in it fill_super method. Is it good?
> > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > da...@fromorbit.com -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
