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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
