From: "Muntz, Daniel" Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] NFS: Add NFS_MOUNT_NONEGDE flag to avoid caching negative dentries Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:00:38 -0800 Message-ID: <01AE8AF878612047A442668306EAEB0501817BA4@SACEXMV01.hq.netapp.com> References: <20080115163013.GC18911@newbie.thebellsplace.net> <1200415972.7702.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20080116012209.GB26010@newbie.thebellsplace.net> <1200451350.28088.43.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <478DFD5A.1040501@RedHat.com> <01AE8AF878612047A442668306EAEB05018178E7@SACEXMV01.hq.netapp.com> <1200516219.6932.22.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20080118152902.GF7128@newbie.thebellsplace.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "Trond Myklebust" , "Steve Dickson" , "NFS list" To: "Bob Bell" , "Chuck Lever" Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:22598 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764843AbYARUBR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:01:17 -0500 In-reply-to: <20080118152902.GF7128-y89O8yXFYpDSsb2jM9SCN5/hYUUxywnI@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: How about "all" instead of "full" ("all" being the opposite of "none")? A cache being "full", although not making sense in this context, does have another meaning. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Bell [mailto:b_linuxnfs-Y/+76LoPTq9wBoktGHYdvgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 7:29 AM To: Chuck Lever Cc: Trond Myklebust; Muntz, Daniel; Steve Dickson; NFS list Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] NFS: Add NFS_MOUNT_NONEGDE flag to avoid caching negative dentries On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:49:20PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>How about >> -odircache=aggr[essive] /* Full caching */ >> -odircache=noneg[ative] /* Positive lookups only */ >> -odircache=off /* strict lookup revalidation */ > > "-olookupcache=" would be even more specific, if not more verbose. >dircache=off implies that not even readdir results are cached. > > -olookupcache=full > -olookupcache=pos[itive] > -olookupcache=strict I think that "lookupcache" is a little more accurate, and perhaps worth the verbosity. "dircache" could be misinterpreted to imply that directory listings are being cached -- which, incidentally, I'm start to receive complaints is a problem for us, too... Converstation on this seems to have died down, and I'm ready to revisit the patch. I'm inclined to go with: -o lookupcache=full -o lookupcache=pos[itive] -o lookupcache=none If you have a strong (enough) opinion otherwise, please speak up now and save me the trouble of an extra pass at the patch... -- Bob Bell