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/[email protected]]
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