On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:53, Jörn Engel wrote:

Maybe lazy allocation.  vmalloc() it with the first write(), which
should be never in production use.  So the extra overhead doesn't
really matter.

Seems reasonable.

Do you mind if I submit such a patch?

For the CVS code, which is what's in 2.5, please do. Don't bother with
2.4; I rewrote all the block translation layer crap so the individual
translation drivers doesn't have to be too involved with the horridness
of the Linux block layer.

-- 
dwmw2