[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200228153951.GH29971@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 07:39:51 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] fs/dcache: Limit # of negative dentries
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:32:02AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 2/27/20 10:34 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > The canonical argument in favour of negative dentries is to improve
> > application startup time as every application searches the library path
^^^^^^^
> > for the same libraries. Only they don't do that any more:
^^^^^^^^^
>
> It is the shell that does the path search, not the command itself.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists