> >>>> Why xfs code is said to be 5 times bigger than e.g. reiserfs?
> >>>> Does it have to be that big?
> >>> If we cut the bulkstat code out, the handle interface, the
> >>> preallocation, the journalled quota, the delayed allocation, all the
> >>> runtime validation, the shutdown code, the debug code, the tracing
> >>> code, etc, then we might get down to the same size reiser....
> >> Just noticed this bit of FUD. Last time I did some static analysis on
> >> stack usage, reiserfs alone would blow away 3k, while xfs was somewhere
> >> below.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but it's not what I said.
> > I didn't say reiserfs eats less stack. I don't know.
> > I said it is smaller.
> >
> > reiserfs/* 821474 bytes
> > xfs/* 3019689 bytes
>
> FWIW, the reason for that is in large part all the features Dave listed
> above, and probably more.
>
> And, while certainly not yet tiny, the recent trend actually is that xfs
> is getting a bit smaller:
>
>
http://oss.sgi.com/~sandeen/xfs-linedata.png
