Searched hist:"7950 e385" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ |
| H A D | namei.c | 7950e385 Wed Oct 10 15:43:13 CDT 2012 Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> vfs: embed struct filename inside of names_cache allocation if possible
In the common case where a name is much smaller than PATH_MAX, an extra
allocation for struct filename is unnecessary. Before allocating a
separate one, try to embed the struct filename inside the buffer first. If
it turns out that that's not long enough, then fall back to allocating a
separate struct filename and redoing the copy.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
7950e385 Wed Oct 10 15:43:13 CDT 2012 Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> vfs: embed struct filename inside of names_cache allocation if possible
In the common case where a name is much smaller than PATH_MAX, an extra
allocation for struct filename is unnecessary. Before allocating a
separate one, try to embed the struct filename inside the buffer first. If
it turns out that that's not long enough, then fall back to allocating a
separate struct filename and redoing the copy.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | fs.h | 7950e385 Wed Oct 10 15:43:13 CDT 2012 Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> vfs: embed struct filename inside of names_cache allocation if possible
In the common case where a name is much smaller than PATH_MAX, an extra
allocation for struct filename is unnecessary. Before allocating a
separate one, try to embed the struct filename inside the buffer first. If
it turns out that that's not long enough, then fall back to allocating a
separate struct filename and redoing the copy.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
7950e385 Wed Oct 10 15:43:13 CDT 2012 Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> vfs: embed struct filename inside of names_cache allocation if possible
In the common case where a name is much smaller than PATH_MAX, an extra
allocation for struct filename is unnecessary. Before allocating a
separate one, try to embed the struct filename inside the buffer first. If
it turns out that that's not long enough, then fall back to allocating a
separate struct filename and redoing the copy.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|