On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Larmour <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Savin, > > I was looking at this patch. There's an aspect I'm unsure about. I admit I > haven't found any reason why it would go wrong (although that took a lot > head scratching!), but it seems to be a bit odd for a node for "." to be > added to the node cache where the parent cluster is actually that of a > subdirectory. Is this definitely the intended solution? I'm just worried > about unintended side-effects, given that you can then have multiple nodes > pointing to the same directory entry from different directions, so to speak.
Hi Jifl, It should be ok, but I'll recheck the patch to be sure. Regards, Savin
