From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269667AbUJMKk6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:40:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269671AbUJMKk6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:40:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:9122 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269667AbUJMKk4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:40:56 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1097508639.20033.12.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <1097508639.20033.12.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4161B664.70109@RedHat.com> <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> <41667865.2000804@RedHat.com> <20041011142329.GJ4072@admingilde.org> To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Linux filesystem caching discussion list , Martin Waitz , linux-kernel , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Steve Dickson , Clemens Schwaighofer Subject: Re: [Linux-cachefs] Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:40:22 +0100 Message-ID: <30245.1097664022@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Trond Myklebust wrote: > That said, David & co.: why did you choose not to use something similar > to the Solaris syntax for cachefs? Well... (1) when I wrote cachefs I didn't know that Solaris had such a thing (2) I don't know what Solaris syntax is - I've seen one example, and that didn't make a lot of sense (3) my way doesn't involve any changes to userspace programs such as mount > The "layered filesystem" syntax has the advantage that it would avoid > entirely the need to change the NFS mount syntax, And the disadvantage that we'd have to change the VFS to support it, I think. I don't know how this "layered filesystem" thing operates or is used, so I'm guessing. > and would make it easier to port cachefs to cifs etc. I doubt it. The netfs still has to interact with fscache internally to decide how match netfs files to cache files, which is what most of the interface is about; and to push/pull pages to/from the cache (this bit could possibly be made transparent, but I'm not sure how you'd do it on Linux with the present VM & VFS interfaces). David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:40:22 +0100 Sender: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com Message-ID: <30245.1097664022@redhat.com> References: <1097508639.20033.12.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4161B664.70109@RedHat.com> <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> <41667865.2000804@RedHat.com> <20041011142329.GJ4072@admingilde.org> Reply-To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Linux filesystem caching discussion list , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Martin Waitz , linux-kernel , Steve Dickson , Clemens Schwaighofer Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1097508639.20033.12.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> To: Trond Myklebust List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com List-ID: Trond Myklebust wrote: > That said, David & co.: why did you choose not to use something similar > to the Solaris syntax for cachefs? Well... (1) when I wrote cachefs I didn't know that Solaris had such a thing (2) I don't know what Solaris syntax is - I've seen one example, and that didn't make a lot of sense (3) my way doesn't involve any changes to userspace programs such as mount > The "layered filesystem" syntax has the advantage that it would avoid > entirely the need to change the NFS mount syntax, And the disadvantage that we'd have to change the VFS to support it, I think. I don't know how this "layered filesystem" thing operates or is used, so I'm guessing. > and would make it easier to port cachefs to cifs etc. I doubt it. The netfs still has to interact with fscache internally to decide how match netfs files to cache files, which is what most of the interface is about; and to push/pull pages to/from the cache (this bit could possibly be made transparent, but I'm not sure how you'd do it on Linux with the present VM & VFS interfaces). David -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs