On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:46:38PM +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
  | Using shifts and masks instead of multiplies and divides still ends up
  | too large.  Also note that it's double indirect block support that I was
  | suggesting we (optionally) remove, not all indirect block support.
  | 
  | Here's sizes for alpha.
  | 
  | Current unmodified bootxx_ffs:
  | 	-rw-r--r--  1 simonb  wsrc  8096 Jan 30 12:42 bootxx_ffs
  | 	checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym...
  | 	MAXIMUM LOAD SIZE EXCEEDED (7800 > 7680)
  | 
  | bootxx_ffs using shifts and masks:
  | 	-rw-r--r--  1 simonb  wsrc  7800 Jan 30 12:40 bootxx_ffs
  | 	checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym...
  | 	MAXIMUM LOAD SIZE EXCEEDED (8096 > 7680)
  | 
  | bootxx_ffs with no double indirect block support
  | 	-rw-r--r--  1 simonb  wsrc  7504 Jan 30 12:44 bootxx_ffs
  | 	checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym... OK
  | 
  | bootxx_ffs using 32bit daddr_t
  | 	-rw-r--r--  1 simonb  wsrc  7440 Jan 30 12:42 bootxx_ffs
  | 	checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym... OK

This looks like a winner...


  | bootxx_ffs using 32bit daddr_t and no double indirect block support
  | 	-rw-r--r--  1 simonb  wsrc  7184 Jan 30 12:35 bootxx_ffs
  | 	checking sizes for bootxx_ffs/bootxx_ffs.sym... OK