From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269852AbUJHL0K (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:26:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269853AbUJHLZH (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:25:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:7810 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269840AbUJHLWZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:22:25 -0400 Message-ID: <41667865.2000804@RedHat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:22:13 -0400 From: Steve Dickson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Clemens Schwaighofer CC: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux filesystem caching discussion list , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS References: <4161B664.70109@RedHat.com> <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: > brr :) why is it posix, this is so out of the context for me (as a > user). Is it possible to have a cachefs flag. Would make it more logical. Because it was the easiest way to get things started (i.e. no userlevel changes needed at all).... The 'fscache' flag will be coming along with the nfs4 support, since nfs4 mounting code does not have an open (unused) mounting flag.... SteveD. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:22:13 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <41667865.2000804@RedHat.com> References: <4161B664.70109@RedHat.com> <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux filesystem caching discussion list , linux-kernel Return-path: To: Clemens Schwaighofer In-Reply-To: <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> List-ID: Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: > brr :) why is it posix, this is so out of the context for me (as a > user). Is it possible to have a cachefs flag. Would make it more logical. Because it was the easiest way to get things started (i.e. no userlevel changes needed at all).... The 'fscache' flag will be coming along with the nfs4 support, since nfs4 mounting code does not have an open (unused) mounting flag.... SteveD.