[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <22A6238E-0BA4-4AB9-A4FA-28B206A47513@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:34:19 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...cle.com>
To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, ngupta@...are.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, adilger@....com, tytso@....edu,
mfasheh@...e.com, Joel Becker <joel.becker@...cle.com>,
matthew@....cx, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, jeremy@...p.org, JBeulich@...ell.com,
Kurt Hackel <kurt.hackel@...cle.com>, npiggin@...e.de,
Dave Mccracken <dave.mccracken@...cle.com>, riel@...hat.com,
avi@...hat.com, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/8] Cleancache: overview
On 2010-08-03, at 11:35, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> - The FS should be block-device-based (e.g. a ram-based FS
> such as tmpfs should not enable cleancache)
When you say "block device based", does this exclude network filesystems? It would seem cleancache, like fscache, is actually best suited to high-latency network filesystems.
> - To ensure coherency/correctness, inode numbers must be unique
> (e.g. no emulating 64-bit inode space on 32-bit inode numbers)
Does it need to be restricted to inode numbers at all (i.e. can it use an opaque internal identifier like the NFS file handle)? Disallowing cleancache on a filesystem that uses 64-bit (or larger) inodes on a 32-bit system reduces its usefulness.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Technical Lead
Oracle Corporation Canada Inc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists