Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 17:33:43 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r242520 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <3CC9C9A8-20F2-41E6-A7AC-C829AB595D6B@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20121103211518.GH73505@kib.kiev.ua> References: <201210250146.q9P1kLi8043704@svn.freebsd.org> <20121103210818.GY70741@FreeBSD.org> <20121103211518.GH73505@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/11/2012, at 7:45, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 01:08:18AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 01:35:20PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> A> Author: alfred >> A> Date: Sat Nov 3 18:21:40 2012 >> A> New Revision: 242520 >> A> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/242520 >> A> >> A> Log: >> A> Retire MAXUSERS. >> A> >> A> Approved by: peter, meetBSD >> >> This mechanical rename to meaningless (from viewpoint of average >> operating system user) name is not a retirement. It is just a stupid >> rename. >> >> FreeBSD source tree isn't a place for stupid jokes. Please back this >> out. > > Seconded. Unfortunately, this cannot be reverted. At least r242520 shall > stay as is in repo. r242520 is actually.. Author: mckusick Date: Sat Nov 3 18:55:55 2012 UTC (12 hours, 6 minutes ago) Changed paths: 2 Log Message: When a file is first being written, the dynamic block reallocation (implemented by ffs_reallocblks_ufs[12]) relocates the file's blocks so as to cluster them together into a contiguous set of blocks on the disk. When the cluster crosses the boundary into the first indirect block, the first indirect block is initially allocated in a position immediately following the last direct block. Block reallocation would usually destroy locality by moving the indirect block out of the way to keep the data blocks contiguous. This change compensates for this problem by noting that the first indirect block should be left immediately following the last direct block. It then tries to start a new cluster of contiguous blocks (referenced by the indirect block) immediately following the indirect block. We should also do this for other indirect block boundaries, but it is only important for the first one. Suggested by: Bruce Evans MFC: 2 weeks ie it is a joke :) -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CC9C9A8-20F2-41E6-A7AC-C829AB595D6B>