Date: 31 Dec 2010 20:03:49 -0500
Message-ID: <20110101010349.12974.qmail@science.horizon.com>
From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: linux@horizon.com, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com
Subject: Re: still nfs problems [Was: Linux 2.6.37-rc8]
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <1293769968.32633.19.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 970
Lines: 17

> ...and your point would be that an exponentially increasing addition to
> the existing number of tests is an acceptable tradeoff in a situation
> where the >99.999999999999999% case is that of sane servers with no
> looping? I don't think so...

1) Look again; it's O(1) work per entry, or O(n) work for an n-entry
   directory.  And O(1) space.  With very small constant factors, and
   very little code.  The only thing exponentially increasing is the
   interval at which you save the current cookie for future comparison.
2) You said it *was* a problem, so it seemed worth presenting a
   practical solution.  If you don't think it's worth it, I'm not
   going to disagree.  But it's not impossible, or even difficult.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/