Darren Dunham wrote: >>On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Martin Rosenau wrote: > > [...] > >>No objection to the idea, just we have to keep in >>mind: >> >>- we don't want to sacrifice native UFS performance >>- we don't want to make changes to UFS that make it >>incompatible to old >> existing filesystems > > > Would the result have to be a modified UFS driver? Especially given the > problems mentioned of the conditionals, how about separating it out? It > wouldn't be as useful, but could there be a 'ufsx86' for SPARC and a > 'ufssparc' for x86? > > Both could assume the correct byte-swap instead of a conditional. Uglier > than a unified driver, but the functionality would be appreciated if a unifed > one will never be written. >
Just as a point of reference, NetBSD has had support for different endianess in FFS for a while (never tested actually sharing disks or familiar with how it works) and it doesn't seem to cause a large performance overhead (at least for the native endianess case). See 'options FFS_EI': http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?options++NetBSD-current Since the code is probably radically different I am not sure how helpful it will be, but it is out there. _______________________________________________ ufs-discuss mailing list [email protected]
