From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268153AbUJHJCx (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 05:02:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268177AbUJHJCx (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 05:02:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:3249 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268153AbUJHJCw (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 05:02:52 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> References: <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> <4161B664.70109@RedHat.com> To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list Cc: Steve Dickson , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel , Trond Myklebust 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: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:02:34 +0100 Message-ID: <5324.1097226154@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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. It's a prototype, so Steve's made use of an existing flag for convenience sake. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [Linux-cachefs] Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:02:34 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <5324.1097226154@redhat.com> References: <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> <4161B664.70109@RedHat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Steve Dickson , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel , Trond Myklebust Return-path: In-Reply-To: <41661950.5070508@tequila.co.jp> To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list List-ID: > 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. It's a prototype, so Steve's made use of an existing flag for convenience sake. David